A Story of David and Goliath: Neighborhood Folks versus Big Money

By Bea Nemlaha

The Third Street Neighborhood Historic District is under seige. Two months ago the City Council approved the construction of a modernist, shoebox style residence in the District over the objections of the District’s residents. They contended the design violates the character of the District and the purposes for which the District was created.

On April 22, 2008 the Council will hear an appeal by a property owner requesting permission to build a two story modernist style, cantilevered structure at 2617 Third Street in the heart of the District. The Cantilever failed to get enough votes for approval by the 5 Landmarks Commissioners who were allowed to vote. Had all 7 been allowed to vote, the Commission would have rejected the Cantilever by a 4 to 3 vote.

2617 Third Street is a two phase project that has been before the Landmarks Commission since the fall of 2006. In Phase I, over the opposition of District residents, the property owner got permission to move the 1905 bungalow forward on the lot and make it wider. This created a larger construction site, partially screened by the fatter bungalow, for the large Phase II Cantilever.

The Phase I and II Cantilever project is well-funded and well-organized. The owner has hired a pre-eminent local law firm, a well-respected, politically well-connected architectural firm, a preservation consultant, and a community public relations advocate to get the Cantilever through. District residents have been out-spent and out-gunned, their passion to protect their neighborhood their greatest opposing asset.

The District is small: only two blocks of Second and Third Streets in Ocean Park between Ocean Park Boulevard and Hill Street. Out of this tiny neighborhood, over 43 residents (and counting) have submitted letters and appeared at the 4 Landmarks Commission meetings in opposition; over 649 Santa Monica residents (and counting) have signed on-line and paper petitions describing and opposing this Cantilever. Over a dozen local preservation architects, historians, other preservation professionals, community activists, and Santa Monica Neighborhood Councils oppose the Phase II Cantilever.

Residents of the District are dismayed and incredulous that in this tiny, most protected of neighborhoods in Santa Monica they again must fight to preserve the character of a neighborhood they believed they succeeded in preserving 18 years ago. Residents feel that the City has betrayed a covenant it made with them when residents successfully asked the City to create the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District.

A unanimous City Council created the District in 1990 in response to a grass roots movement by its resident property owners and tenants. Over 100 residents, and many more Santa Monica citizens in support, asked for this District in Ocean Park. The purpose was to preserve and celebrate for future generations a turn of the century Santa Monica Beach neighborhood, its memories, and its history.

The Landmarks Ordinance which created the District states that the neighborhood met all of the then five reasons for designation (though only one was needed). The Ordinance says the neighborhood deserves protection, in part because:

"The Third Street Neighborhood Historic District possesses aesthetic significance to Santa Monica in that the area displays a high percentage of original, turn of the century structures, a consistency in building type, primarily the California bungalow, and a close association with the natural environment, as demonstrated in the particular by the siting of the homes on the east side of Third Street which are set into the slope of the hill. These elements combine to create an area with both a sense of place and a sense of Santa Monica’s past."

"The . . . District possesses architectural significance to Santa Monica in that the area displays a variety of architectural styles . . . which provide a visual representation of the Neighborhood’s development through the 1930s. In addition, the Neighborhood is dominated by bungalows. . . The Third Street Neighborhood is a representative example of this architectural movement in Santa Monica."

The residents who asked for the District did not want large, incompatible buildings to destroy the character of their neighborhood of modest, historic homes, then a wide-spread phenomenon in other Santa Monica neighborhoods. It was, in fact, a proposal to replace a 1909 craftsman bungalow (which had served as the Southern California Draft Resistance Center in the late 1960s) with a cement and metal lot-line to lot-line condo which ignited the passion of these residents.

In exchange for protecting their neighborhood from new buildings and remodels whose size, shape, and style would change or damage the neighborhood’s very special character, resident property owners agreed to voluntarily submit to additional layers of City review over proposed new construction and additions their homes. At the time it seemed a fair exchange.

New property owners who valued older neighborhoods were eager to make the same deal: some limitations on exterior design flexibility in exchange for the knowledge and security that large, incompatible buildings would never be built in their community next to or across the street from them. These owners scrupulously rehabilitated sometimes derelict houses at great expense, when demolition and new construction would have been more economic. They relied on the promise that their homes and their neighborhood would be protected from intrusions of incompatible buildings and remodels.

There is probably no more protected two blocks in Santa Monica than the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District, but now that is not enough to protect the character of this neighborhood. Even the interests of the majority of homeowners who asked for and relied on Historic District protections have not outweighed the singular architectural desires of one or two new owners to do something at odds with the purposes for which the District was created.

If this most protected of neighborhoods cannot hold the line against incompatible intrusions damaging to neighborhood character, what hope is there for other neighborhoods? And if submitting to self-imposed limitations and more City review of exterior changes to one’s home does not provide any protections against bad stuff next door or across the street, why would the residents of any other neighborhood in Santa Monica want to become a historic district?

The project law firm’s tortured argument justifying the Phase II Cantilever before the Council goes something like this.

According to the District Design Guidelines written to carry out the Landmarks Ordinance, the Phase II Cantilever should be reviewed as an addition to a non-contributing building, not as new construction which has supposedly "tougher" standards. The allegedly "easier" standard for an addition is that ". . . a reasonable effort has been made to produce compatibility with the District character as set forth in Section 9.36.290 [of the Landmarks Ordinance], and with the scale, materials and massing of the contributing structures within the District." According to the building code, the Phase II Cantilever is a remodel, or an addition.

Now one must seriously question in the real world, rather than in the arcane, mesmerizing world of building codes, whether the Phase II Cantilever is only "just an addition" to an existing building. In this case, the existing building will be razed to the ground except for two interior stud walls. The Phase II Cantilever which will rise from its ashes will be two times bigger; it will be an entirely different shape; it will expand to occupy a different part of the lot; and it will be a primary residence at the back of the lot instead of a converted garage. No visible reminder of the building it replaces will remain - - no exterior walls, doors, windows, roof line, siding, or shape.

Then the argument continues with a straight face that all that is required to approve the Phase II Cantilever is to find that the property owner made a "reasonable effort" to produce compatibility with the District character, whether or not the effort succeeded. In other words, if you try and fail, that’s good enough.

The argument continues on and asserts that the Phase II Cantilever is actually compatible with the scale, materials and massing of the historic (contributing) structures within the District.

This argument blatantly overlooks the inconvenient reference in the District Guidelines to the District character as set forth in Section 9.36.290 [of the Landmarks Ordinance]. That’s the part where the Ordinance says the District ". . . displays a consistency in building type, primarily the California bungalow," that the District was created to ". . . create an area with both a sense of place and a sense of Santa Monica’s past," and the part that says the District provides ". . . a visual representation of the Neighborhood’s development through the 1930s. . . and the Neighborhood is a representative example of the [bungalow] architectural movement in Santa Monica."

The Phase II Cantilever is not a consistent building type in the District, it does not create a sense of Santa Monica’s past nor of an early beach neighborhood. The Phase II Cantilever is not part of the Neighborhood’s development through the 1930s. Its cantilever shape is distinctly at odds with the traditional bungalows which dominate the Neighborhood and for which the Neighborhood was recognized as architecturally significant to Santa Monica.

Finally, the argument reaches for compatibility by observing that the Phase II Cantilever is compatible with the scale, materials and massing of the contributing structures (historic houses) in the District. Yes, some of the bungalows are two story and approximately the same square feet (2400 plus/minus). Yes, the homes in the District are built of wood and stucco. Unless you are Disney Hall or live in a brick brownstone in New York, that’s pretty much it for building materials in Southern California, so it doesn’t take much to match wood and stucco as a building material.

Massing is where the argument fails. Massing includes reference to shape. The property owner’s argument fails to acknowledge that there is not a single historic building in the District which masses as a Cantilever. The effort to compare this two story Cantilever pair of boxes to a one-story Spanish Colonial Revival Bungalow Court or Duplex because both are square and both have flat roofs is at best disingenuous and worse, insulting.

The District residents who oppose this project do not oppose modern architecture. Many find the Phase II Cantilever attractive and well-designed and think it would be a desirable addition to any neighborhood outside of the two tiny blocks of the Historic District. The opposition is to this incompatible Cantilever in the Historic District, a turn of the century beach bungalow neighborhood.

Hopefully the City Council will see through the property owner’s legal gobbledygook on April 22, 2008. Hopefully it will exercise both common sense and an honorable commitment to the covenant it made with the Third Street Historic District residents 18 years ago to protect the character of this very tiny special place. Hopefully the City Council will deny the 2617 Third Street appeal.

Bea Nemlaha is a resident and one of the early organizers of the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District.