Tenants lose fight for homes
CITY HALL — Tenants convinced their home is a historic landmark were unable to persuade elected officials, who approved the demolition of the Christie Courtyard so the owner can put up condos.
The Santa Monica City Council on Tuesday voted against a June 2004 Landmarks Commission decision requesting the preservation of the Christie Courtyard, a 24-unit garden-style apartment complex located on the northwest corner of Neilson Way and Pacific Avenue.
The council’s decision, supported by city staff, consultants and the developer, came in the wake of unprecedented efforts by Christie’s tenants to support historical preservation of the Santa Monica residential site they occupy.
Four members of the Santa Monica City Council supported not granting the Christie Courtyard historical status, with Councilman Bobby Shriver opposing the decision.
Councilman Ken Genser, who works for the developer, abstained from voting due to a conflict of interest. Councilman Kevin McKeown was absent from the meeting.
In recent weeks, the council made a similar decision to approve demolition of a vacant Craftsman-style bungalow in the Third Street district, which the owner also wanted to make into a condominium complex.
Going into Tuesday night’s meeting, Rosario Perry, an attorney who deals with affordable housing issues in Santa Monica, said it would be interesting to see how the council ruled regarding Christie’s, particularly in light of its decision to allow re-development of the abandoned Craftsman bungalow.
Perry said he believed the council would face unusual pressure to preserve Christie’s by its tenants.
“Until now, the council has been dealing with properties that are largely abandoned,” Perry said. “With the increasing housing crunch, and higher market rates, there’s more pressure than ever to redevelop apartments.
“At the same time, there seems to be greater efforts by tenants to keep older apartments intact.”
More than a dozen Christie’s residents took turns sharing with the council petitions, letters of support, and more than 50 pages of research and photos they had gathered regarding the social, economic and cultural history of their 80-year-old home.
Although only one landmark criteria was needed to be proved for historical designation, they said Christie’s fell under three categories.
A staff report describes the courtyard as modest in scale, surrounded by wood-frame construction, stucco siding, flat roofs and parapets highlighted with an edge of red clay tile. Concrete sidewalks border the courtyard, and two rows of planters containing agaves, yucca trees and bougainvillea are adjacent to the front entrance steps.
Residents noted Christie’s wide and green courtyard and other design aspects distinguished it from others. They said the city’s historical inventory, used in categorizing possible historical buildings, straddled the complex with 15 others that mischaracterized it. They argued many of these courtyards were inferior in style to Christie’s, more like walkways.
“Although the survey says there are 15 courts, there are not 15 courts like Christie’s,” said Carlo Brooks, a Christie’s tenant.
In addition, the residents argued Christie’s offered a community feel to its occupants since it was built in 1924. They showed photographs of laborers, mid-level professionals and artists who once lived there.
“It’s the poster child for Santa Monica’s affordable housing movement,” said resident Robert Minzner.
Another resident, Dishanya Weerasinha, noted Christie’s history of ordinary people who move to Santa Monica, was, in fact, what made it special.
“History just doesn’t happen in buildings occupied by rich people and celebrities, but also people like us,” Weerasinha said.
David Moss, an attorney representing the owner, urged the council to look at Christie’s on a more objective basis.
“Your consultant and my consultant are united here,” Moss said. “The professionals agree this is not a historical building.”
Moss said emotional appeals made by residents to protect buildings they occupy could become a dangerous standard for preservation in Santa Monica, if the council succumbed to such tactics.
“They could put up pictures of faces from the past, trolley cars, the pier, and those buildings would have to be landmarked.”
A historical consultant, working on behalf of the property owner, noted a fire had significantly altered the complex in 1994. Christie’s also lacked the original doors and windows, and its exterior had been re-finished.
Jan Ostashay, the city’s historical consultant, said she used a methodology, set by state and national guidelines, in her determination that Christie’s was not distinct enough to be preserved.
“Its not arbitrary,” she said. “It’s due to a set process.”
Shriver asked Ostashay if her professional opinion would change if some of Christie’s original features were still intact. Ostashay said it would help, but not change her opinion.
Mayor Pam O’Connor, who has a background in historical building preservation, also supported staff’s and Ostashay’s position.
“A building always has a story to it,” O’Connor said. “Most lives are exceptional to some level. (If we used that as a basis), we would have to preserve most buildings that are older than 40 years.”
Councilman Richard Bloom thanked the residents for sharing Santa Monica history with the council and public, but he did not feel the site warranted preservation.
Shriver, who voted against demolition, believed Christie’s qualified for landmarking under the first category, exemplifying “elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of Santa Monica.”
“I think it’s a special place,” Shriver said.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 28, 2005. Read the original PDF.