Item 7-A

City Council Meeting: 02-16-99 Santa Monica, California

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: City Staff

SUBJECT: Appeal of a Condition of Approval of the Landmarks Commission's Designation of the Structure Located at 2712 Second Street as a City Landmark (Case No. LC-98-LM-001). Applicant: City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission. Appellants: Church in Ocean Park (United Methodist), and Ocean Park Community Organization

INTRODUCTION

This report recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Landmarks Commission designating the structure located at 2712 Second Street as a City Landmark, and requests that the Council provide Staff with direction regarding the alteration, relocation, or demolition of the structure. On December 14, 1998, the Landmarks Commission designated the structure a City Landmark with the condition that the applicant attempt to relocate the structure within sixty days. According to the condition, the Commission would review the efforts made by the owner to relocate the structure within sixty days. If sufficient evidence were to demonstrate that relocation was not possible, the Commission would allow the demolition of the structure. Two appeals have been filed concerning this condition; one by the Church in Ocean Park (Attachment A), and the other by Ocean Park Community Organization (Attachment B).

BACKGROUND

Landmarks Commission Action

The property owner filed a demolition permit application with the City on September 2, 1998. Per the requirements of the City's Demolition Ordinance, the Landmarks Commission reviews all demolition permits for structures which are fifty years of age or older. A sixty day hold is placed on these demolition permit applications to allow adequate time to assess the building for potential landmark status. If a landmark designation application is filed by the Landmarks Commission or a member of the public, the Landmarks Ordinance sets forth specific time frames for the processing of such applications.

The Commission reviewed the demolition permit for 2712 Second Street at its regular meeting on September 14, 1998. The Historic Resources Inventory's evaluation of the building indicates that it appears to be individually eligible for designation as a local landmark, and for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Accordingly, the Commission directed staff to research the structure to determine its merit as a landmark, and to prepare a preliminary historic evaluation of the property. This preliminary evaluation was submitted to the Commission on October 19, 1998. The report presented evidence supporting the structure as a strong candidate for local landmark designation. Based on this information, the Commission filed an application to designate the structure as a local landmark by motion at the October 19, 1998 hearing.

At its November 9, 1998 hearing, the Commission formally considered the application for landmark designation, and scheduled a public hearing for December 14, 1998. At the December hearing, the Landmarks Commission designated the structure as a City Landmark with the condition that the structure may be demolished provided that, within 60 days, the applicant submits the following: a) full documentation of the structure for the historic record (including photographs and floor plans); and 2) sufficient evidence that the structure could not be relocated.

On January 11, 1999, two appeals were filed challenging the condition potentially allowing demolition - the same date of the regularly scheduled Landmarks Commission's January meeting. During the January 11, 1999 meeting, the Commission formally adopted the findings for the designation. In addition, the property owner's representative informed the Commission that the owner was aware of the appeals and would try to work with the appellants to find a suitable location for the structure in order to avoid demolition.

Description and Historic Significance of Structure

This residence is located in the Santa Monica Tract south of Hill Street in the Ocean Park neighborhood. The structure's style is described as "shotgun" - one room wide, one story tall, and several rooms deep. The entrance is below the front gable, which is sheltered by a porch. The property appears to retain a good level of integrity despite the fact that some windows are boarded with plywood.

The shotgun house is an American building type resulting from a synthesis of sources from the Caribbean region, Europe and Africa. It is considered to be a vernacular form of architecture in that it presents its architectural expression through the use of common forms, materials and decoration of a place or period of time. The shotgun style was initially associated with African American communities of the southeast, but its adaptability to a variety of circumstances, such as those where temporary or inexpensive housing was required, meant that the shotgun house was quickly diffused throughout the nation and built inu many communities. This City's architectural survey notes that this structure may have been constructed initially as a beach cottage, or may have provided housing for workers associated with the nearby rail or oil industries. The shotgun house has been recognized as an important example of American vernacular housing in such standard texts as Virginia and Lee McAlisters' A Field Guide to American Houses (1984) and Dell Upton's America's Architectural Roots (1988).

As a result of the City's historic survey information and review of documentation for this structure, staff recommended that the structure was "significant for its age, architectural type, and integrity. The structure is a remarkably intact example of a shotgun house and should be preserved as a historical document of Santa Monica's heritage and deserves the highest level of local protection." The residence is eligible for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C, as it "embodies distinctive characteristics of a type and period of construction." It is also eligible for local listing under City landmark designation criterion (a)(4), as it "embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period and style, and is a unique example of a historical type in the City of Santa Monica." (See attached October 8, 1998 Landmarks Commission Staff Report/Evaluation by Historic Consultant.)

Photographs of the structure and testimony provided during the public hearings demonstrate that the interior ceiling heights do not meet the minimum building code requirements. The photographs also show that the building is in a deteriorated condition and appears to be in need of both structural and cosmetic rehabilitation.

The applicant submitted a structural engineer's report (Attachment J) which concluded that the structure is not seismically adequate. The report contends that rehabilitation would require extensive removal of interior and exterior surfaces to install strengthening measures. In addition, due to the structure's lack of ties and connections for stability, it would not be able to maintain its structural integrity if it were to be moved to another location.

Although City Building and Safety staff agree that the building is not seismically resistant, the level of rehabilitation required with regard to the architectural integrity of the structure remains unclear, and requires additional analysis. Both CEQA and the State Historic Building Code (used in place of the Uniform Building Code in the case of historic buildings) seek to ensure that historical resources are protected. Since the City must comply with these rules, further analysis regarding the feasibility of rehabilitating (as opposed to rebuilding) this structure may be required.

ANALYSIS

Appellant's Statements

The appellants state that this landmark designation appeal is based on the following reasons. (Please note that each of the appellant's reasons is indicated in bold text. Staff's analysis follows in regular text.) Although the project has been appealed by two separate groups, both appeals refer to the same condition, and are repeated in full below:

1. (Ocean Park Community Organization or "OPCO").

Neighborhood Association wants more time to negotiate a community use to save historic building. We disagree with the finding of Section II (1) that allows the structure to be demolished despite being a City landmark.

2. (Church in Ocean Park).

The Church in Ocean Park commends the Landmarks Commission for designating 2712 Second Street as a landmark. It naturally follows then that this structure should not be allowed to be demolished. Therefore we appeal Section II (1) of Findings and Determination. City staff to issue a demolition permit within 30-60 days when there is a community group making sincere efforts to have the structure relocated.

We support the community as represented by Ocean Park Community Organization, in their efforts to move the structure to another site and rehabilitate the structure. The structure represents an important part of Ocean Park neighborhood history. The Church in Ocean Park and one of its accessory buildings has a 100-year history. We, ourselves, made every effort to rehabilitate the Archer House at great expense because of our own interest in preserving history.

The subject of these appeals, Section II (1) of the Findings and Determination on this landmark designation reads as follows:

1. The applicant shall attempt to relocate the structure within 60 days, and return to the Commission with evidence of such efforts. If the Commission determines that the owner has made reasonable efforts to relocate the structure and it is not possible to do so, the Commission shall allow City staff to issue a demolition permit.

In making the designation findings for this structure, the Landmarks Commission recognized that the structure met the minimum landmark designation criterion in that the building embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period and style, and is a unique example of a historic building type in the City of Santa Monica. However, the Commission also recognized that the structure is in a deteriorated condition, and that the restoration would require extensive structural modifications which might result in the rebuilding, rather than the rehabilitation, of the architectural characteristics which qualify this property as a landmark.

Although staff believes the structure warrants landmark status, staff has not verified the property owner's contention that the structure cannot be repaired without destroying the building's character defining exterior features. (See Attachment G, letter with report from Nabih Youssef, Structural Engineer).

CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS

Under the provisions of the Landmarks Ordinance, the City Council has three options, which are outlined below.

1) The Council may uphold the decision of the Landmarks Commission and designate the structure located at 2712 Second Street a landmark based upon the Landmarks Ordinance criteria contained in Section 9.36.100, and consider allowing demolition of the structure.

In most circumstances staff does not recommend that this provision be used since it significantly detracts from the very protections that a landmark designation provides in that it would allow demolition of a landmark structure. However, if the Council does take this action, review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be required before authorization of the demolition may occur. Under CEQA, a project (including physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource) which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is considered to be a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Under CEQA, the City is required to identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource.

2. The Council may decide that the findings cannot be made for the designation, and therefore overturn the designation and allow demolition of the structure. Findings would have to be made demonstrating that the structure does not meet the Landmarks Ordinance's minimum criteria for designation.

3. The Council may uphold the designation, but overturn the decision to allow demolition of the structure. Under this option, if the Council chooses to consider whether the structure may be altered, rehabilitated, or relocated, CEQA review would be required to determine whether the alterations present a significant impact on the historic resource. Under the landmarks ordinance, any permit processing time frames may be extended by the Director of Planning by such periods as are necessary to comply with CEQA (see SMMC §9.36.280).

In addition, the Council should note the Landmarks Ordinance time constraints related to appeals. Section 9.36.180(e) requires that the Council issue a determination on an appeal no more than 30 days from the date of the initial public hearing. The Council must, therefore, render a decision on this appeal no later than March 18, 1999.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Notice of this public hearing was published in The Argonaut Newspaper and mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenant of property located within a 300 foot radius of the project at least 10 days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment D.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT

The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.

RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that City Council uphold the decision of the Landmarks Commission to designate the structure located at 2712 Second Street a City Landmark with the following finding and direct staff regarding how to proceed with any alteration, rehabilitation, or relocation of the structure.

Finding

1. The structure located at 2712 Second Street meets SMMC historic designation criteria 9.36.100(a)(4) in that it embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period and style, and is a unique example of a historical type in the city of Santa Monica. The shotgun house is an American building type that resulted from a synthesis of sources from the Caribbean region, Europe, and Africa. It is a vernacular architectural form that was initially associated with African-American communities of the southeast, but its adaptability to a variety of circumstances, where temporary or inexpensive housing was required, meant that the shotgun house was quickly diffused throughout the nation and used by many communities. The shotgun house at 2712 Second Street may have been constructed initially as a beach cottage, or may have provided housing for workers associated with the nearby rail or oil industries. The shotgun house has been recognized as an important example of American vernacular housing in such standard texts as Virginia and Lee McAlisters'A Field Guide to American Houses (1984) and Dell Upton's America's Architectural Roots (1986)

Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director

Jay Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager

David Martin, Senior Planner

Donna Jerex, Associate Planner

City Planning Division

Planning and Community Development Department

Attachments:

A: Appeal Forms

B: Landmark Designation Application LC-98-LM-001

C: Public Notice

D: Landmarks Commission Excerpt Minutes

E. Landmarks Commission staff reports

F. Landmarks Commission Designation Findings and Determination

G. Report from Nabih Youssef & Assoc., Structural Engineers

H. Letter from Lawrence & Harding dated 2/10/99

F:\ADMIN\SHARE\PENSTAF\CCSTF\990216\s99021607-A.wpd