A Story of David and Goliath, Part II: Neighborhood Folks vs. Hollywood and Carpetbaggers

By Bea Nemlaha

Last Tuesday the City Council heard public testimony on an appeal on the modernist Phase II Cantilever a property owner wants to build at 2617 Third Street, the sensitive heart of Santa Monica’s only Historic District.

After three prior public hearings, the Landmarks Commission had failed to approve the Phase II Cantilever. Four of the seven Commissioners oppose the Cantilever on grounds that (1) it is not compatible with the character of the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District, (2) a reasonable effort was not made by the property owner and his architect to achieve compatibility, and (3) the Cantilever would be detrimental to the District’s character and future.

It is significant that the Commission’s local historian and its architectural historian both oppose the Cantilever. This is, after all, a historic district, not just an architectural one.

Tuesday’s Council hearing opened with a glitzy, glossy, sophisticated (and doubtless expensive) big-screen presentation of the Cantilever. Only the MGM Lion was missing.

The Council Chambers were packed. 75 people submitted chits to speak. Many Santa Monica residents who oppose the Cantilever left before they could speak. (The meeting started after 9 p.m. and continued well past midnight.)

My neighbors who live in the Historic District, and other Santa Monica preservationists and community activists were surprised by the turn-out. The District is tiny. Ocean Park is small. Santa Monica is not a big town. Yet we did not recognize the vast majority of the people who supported the Cantilever.

Some of the Cantilever’s early supporters said they were friends of the property owner. Most failed to state any address as required. The Mayor did not ask for this information, which he should have.

So I went to City Hall after the Council meeting to inspect the names and addresses on the speakers chits. I confirmed what my neighbors and I already believed.

Forty-one people opposed the Cantilever. 34 supported. 23 of the Cantilever’s 34 supporters were carpetbaggers from North Hills, Reseda, Burbank, Malibu, Venice, Culver City and Los Angeles coming in to try to influence the City Council’s deliberations and vote.

These speakers were friends, relatives, and professional colleagues of the property owner and his architect. They do not live or vote in Santa Monica. They have no stake in what happens in our City or in our only Historic District. (To be fair, supporters also included a few District absentee landlords and two new property owners who have never lived in the District and still don’t).

This is what I found on the chits submitted to the Council.

Of the two non-residents who oppose the Cantilever, one was the Chair of the Landmarks Commission when the District was created; the second was a preservation consultant hired by the District residents to detail the defining characteristics of the District for use as a measure of compatibility when new projects are proposed for the District.

At the hearing I argued that in its deliberations the Council should give great weight to the opinions of those most affected by what happens in the District: the stakeholders who live there, both homeowners and tenants, and Santa Monica residents generally. Council member O’Connor took me to task on this, questioning whether I was suggesting other opinions should not be heard. Of course they should.

But I stand by my position that the people who created this District and made it what it is today should, on balance, be heard as the stakeholders with the weightiest claims on the City to honor its commitment to protect the character of this District.

It has often been said that preservation’s greatest asset is citizens who are passionate about it. That has never been more true than in this case.

We must all remember that this District was created in response to a grass-roots groundswell by people who lived there and wanted to protect its sense of time and place. This District was not the idea or the creation of City Staff or of architects or of preservation experts or other professionals.

Until recently, most of the people who bought into the District after it was formed wanted to live in a neighborhood of older homes with front lawns, porches, large yards, and a strong sense of community.

Many of the Cantilever’s supporters at Tuesday’s council meeting spoke to the beauty of Third Street and the pleasure they enjoy walking along it. That beauty was created by homeowners and tenants who have committed their time, energy, and financial resources to fix up the old homes and make them beautiful. These are the people who now so vigorously oppose the Phase II Cantilever. How ironic and unfortunate that the very people who made the District a desirable community are now being threatened with damage to the character of the District that attracted them in the first place.

The Lookout's Frank Gruber recently summarized a Landmark’s Commissioner’s belief that we must have flexible design standards in historic districts so we do not discourage other districts from forming. This turns the reason for a historic district on its head.

People want historic districts to protect the older, community feeling of a neighborhood from modernist intrusions and overbuilding, not because they want flexible building standards. Flexible building standards are most absolute without historic district protections.

So in the end, after the carpetbaggers have left town and the lights come up in the Council Chambers when the Cantilever movie is over, how can the Council decide the right thing to do here. It’s not hard if Council members apply common sense.

The Landmarks Ordinance says that to gain approval to build the Council must find that the Phase II Cantilever made a ". . . reasonable effort . . . 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 [historic] buildings within the District."

A reasonable effort must be made. To do what? To produce compatibility. With what? With the District character and with scale, materials, and massing.

What is the District’s character? The Landmarks Ordinance says the District has a consistency in building type, primarily the California bungalow. The Cantilever is not a bungalow and does not mirror the shape or any of the essential defining details of a bungalow. How do we know? Most of us can tell a bungalow from a Cantilever when we see one. How else do we know? The District residents hired a preservation consultant who outlined those details in a 5 page letter given to the Landmarks Commission and now to the Council. Measured against the defining characteristics of the District, the Cantilever just doesn’t make it.

What is the District’s character? The Landmarks Ordinance says the District represents a time when buildings had a close association with the natural environment and gives as an example the way the homes on the east side of Third Street are set into the hill. This is the heart of the District where 2617 Third is found.

This heart is where the property owner wants to hide this Cantilever behind a front house, 8 foot high walls and a gate, and as much landscaping as he can get to quickly grow. But if the Cantilever is compatible, it need not be hidden. And if it is not compatible, it is dangerous to rely on plant material to hide it since buildings generally outlast trees and bushes and new owners with different ideas about landscaping and views.

What is the District’s character? The Landmarks Ordinance says the District is an area with a sense of place and a sense of Santa Monica’s past. Does a Cantilever evoke a sense of Santa Monica’s past? Does it evoke a turn of the century beach neighborhood? Does this Phase II Cantilever fit in to, or does it remind us of a modest neighborhood of humble houses built for artisan and working class homeowners? That would be a stretch.

What is the District character? The Landmarks Ordinance says the District possesses architectural significance by displaying a variety of architectural styles which provide a visual representation of the Neighborhood’s development through the 1930s. The Phase II Cantilever is 80 years too late for this.

What is the District character? The Landmarks Ordinance again notes that the Neighborhood is dominated by bungalows and that the Third Street Neighborhood is a representative example of this architectural movement in Santa Monica. The Cantilever is not such an example.

Approval of the Cantilever requires compatibility with the scale, materials, and massing characteristic of the historic buildings in the District. Massing means shape. Even a child sees that a Cantilever’s shape is all wrong, just as a child (and perhaps only a child) sees that the emperor is naked.

Santa Monica presents a large pallette for property owners and their architects to build and experiment with their craft. The tiny two blocks of our Historic District are not the place for that.

The 2617 Third Street property owner has a large piece of property and he should, of course, be able to use and enjoy it. But as others who have come before him in the Historic District, his use and enjoyment and whatever he chooses to build should respect the character of the Historic District and be compatible and harmonious with it. The Phase II Cantilever is neither.

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