> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Saving history clouds future - URL: https://www.smdp.com/saving-history-clouds-future/ - Published: 2007-11-17T16:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-24T03:58:00.000Z - Author: Melody Hanatani - Tags: Environment, Ocean Park, #archive-import *History takes on progress* OCEAN PARK When Karen Blechman and her family moved into a California-style bungalow on Third Street a dozen years ago, the dilapidated historic home was showing its old age. The couple put some tender loving care into the property, fixing the crumbling foundation and repairing the drip-prone ceiling, restoring the bungalow to a state reminiscent of its glory days after it was constructed nearly 100 years ago. Today, the Blechmans are the proud owners of one of a series of California bungalows that help make up the fabric of the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District, a formally designated geographic region of Ocean Park that contains several turn-of-the-century properties, evocative of Santa Monica’s past as a sleepy beachside community. “It’s not a pretentiously flashy house, nevertheless, it’s a gracious home,” Blechman said Wednesday. “It’s a home I can be proud of, yet it’s not intimidating.” Yearning for a neighborhood with a sense of antiquity, something to remind Blechman of her hometown of York, England — one of the most historic towns in that country — the couple decided to purchase the district home in 1995. But now the Blechmans fear that their charming corner of Santa Monica could lose its defining character. Controversy is brewing in the historic district, pitting neighbor against neighbor. At the root of it all is one homeowner’s proposal to build an addition on to a two-story structure behind a historic house at 2617 Third St. The Blechmans are among the majority of historic district homeowners trying to persuade the Landmarks Commission to shoot down the construction project, labeling it “modern-style” architecture that would ruin the fabric of the neighborhood, and if approved, would set a “dangerous precedent” that could signal the beginning of the end of the historic district. More than 500 people — a head count larger than the population of the Historic District — have signed a petition calling for the project’s rejection. Their efforts to bring about a timely and favorable resolution were thwarted last Monday when the commission decided to continue a public hearing on the project for another month at the request of the applicant, Mark Woollen, who has owned his 102-year-old bungalow for the past six years. The request was made in order to allow architect Michael Folonis more time to make additional modifications to the project. GRASS ISN’T ALWAYS GREENER To the residents standing on the other side of the fence, the project seems to defy the expectations set forth under a set of guidelines that regulate construction projects in the district, requiring that restoration, rehabilitation and additions be respectful to the overall character of the neighborhood, staying within the scale of surrounding homes and include elements of neighboring buildings. The district — bounded by Third Street to the east, Hill Street to the south, Second Street to the west and Ocean Park Boulevard to the north — includes both contributing and non-contributing structures, the former of which adds to the historic nature of the neighborhood. Construction on both categories of structures require approval from the Landmarks Commission because of their potential impact on the district. In terms of new construction, the guidelines strongly recommend against faux- Victorian architecture, instead encouraging construction that includes elements that complement surrounding buildings. Woollen contends his vision is respectful to the fabric of the neighborhood, noting that most of the construction will be contained to his two-story back house, a noncontributing structure. Woollen and his girl-friend have lived in the back house since they moved into the property because the front bungalow is not habitable, with neither a kitchen nor a bathroom — both of which were gutted by the previous homeowner. “We took a sensitive approach by doing an addition to an already non-contributing building,” Woollen said on Thursday. “I still believe we are following the guidelines.” The contentious situation highlights the somewhat strict guidelines set forth in order to protect the nature of the historic district. The regulations are meant to afford protections for the homes that were once threatened with demolition in the late 1980s, galvanizing a group of long-time residents to file an application to designate the neighborhood as a historic district. “We know we can spend money (renovating) our homes and know that the home next door won’t be torn down into condos,” Blechman said. A GLIMPSE AT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT After a resident on Third Street applied for a demolition permit to construct condominiums in the late-1980s, a group of neighbors approached the Landmarks Commission about establishing a historic district. In addition to the demolition permit, Bea Nemlaha, who lived next door to the applicant, learned that a trust had purchased a row of five signature California bungalows across the street from her with the sole objective of tearing them down for new development. “When the people next door to me got permission to tear down that house, it became really apparent we had to do something quickly if we were going to protect the street,” Nemlaha said. That sparked a year of research into the history of the homes in the neighborhood, discovering that 29 of the bungalows were constructed between 1903 and 1915 and the oldest structure in the area was a Victorian farmhouse on Beach Street, built in 1880. The Victorian farmhouse belongs to Tony Haig, who purchased the home in the 1970s and is currently working to restore it. The house was originally located on Second Street — formerly called Lake Street — and moved to its current location in the early part of the 20th Century. The district includes a wide array of architectural styles, with homes in the California bungalow, Victorian, American Colonial Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival styles. The homes are also unique in that many of them share driveways, fostering a sense of community. More than 40 historic homes contribute to the district, including two churches, one church converted into a private residence and perhaps one of the most popular homes on the block, the so-called airport bungalow craftsman home on the corner of Ocean Park Boulevard and Third Street. The City Council formally established the district on August 1990. It’s one of two historic districts in Santa Monica, the other being the Bay Craftsman Cluster Historic District, which includes a row of four early-1900s craftsman houses between Main Street and Nielson Way. There were several failed attempts to designate other areas of Santa Monica as historic districts in the past, including an area north of Montana Avenue. There are talks of possibly designating a historic district in the South Beach Tract neighborhood,bounded by Hollister Avenue,Ocean Park Boulevard, Barnard Way and Nielson Way. The area includes 109 homes, 88 of which would be contributing structures. The neighborhood contains a high concentration of turn-of-the-century bungalows, according to Nina Fresco, chairman of the Landmarks Commission. The process to designate a historic district typically begins with the filing of an application, going through a series of reports and public hearings before a recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for approval. If more than 50 percent of the homeowners in the affected neighborhood oppose the district, the application automatically dies. “Historic districts are an opportunity for us to preserve a sense of our culture and our past as it comes to us in a way that is much more evocative of individual landmarks can ever be,” Fresco said.“It has community benefits because it creates a defined distinct neighborhood.” Historic homes and designated neighborhoods increase property values, but can make it difficult to initially market the home to potential buyers, according to Peter Mullin of AP Real Estate. But once buyers learn of some of the flexibilities in the guidelines and the tax break with owning a historically designated home, the historic district becomes a selling point. “With these historic properties, you can do anything you want inside the property in terms of remodeling,” Mullin said. Home prices in the Third Street Historic District typically start at $2.5 million, Mullin said. Residents say the historic district is a friendly and open place where neighbors share sugar, walk their dogs together and watch out for each other’s homes. It’s an area also attractive to renters. Erica Kyrakatos moved to a Spanish Colonial Revival apartment on Beach Street a month ago, attracted by its proximity to the beach and Main Street. “I like that it has that quaint and cozy feel,” Kyrakatos said on Friday. “There’s a lot of new development all over the place, but there’s not much building going on (here).” TROUBLE BREWING IN DISTRICT The controversy surrounding Woollen’s proposed addition seems to have strained neighborly relationships in the district. “This is a grassroots effort animated by love for the neighborhood and the community it supports,” Blechman said. At issue with the neighbors of the project at 2617 Third St. is the scale and design of the addition,believing that it would overpower the front bungalow and stick out like a sore thumb. Woollen is also proposing moving his house forward seven feet to bring it in line with the setback of the adjacent homes and make more room in the back for the addition,another sore point for the residents that oppose the project. The design has gone through several versions since it was first presented to the Landmarks Commission in June, reduced in size considerably, its height cut down by about two feet and width by several more. A once-stucco exterior opposed by the commissioners has since been replaced with reclaimed redwood siding,and a roof deck on the taller portion of the back house has been shifted to eliminate it from street view, another concern for commissioners, Folonis said Friday. The project would add 1,200 square feet to the existing 1,140-square foot back house. Woollen is planning to restore the front bungalow and use it as a guest house. Folonis presented renderings of the proposed project from several different street views, each showing that with the inclusion of ginkgo biloba and evergreen trees in the backyard, the house would blend in and not stick out noticeably, as some neighbors have claimed, he said. Opponents say Woollen purchased the home knowing full well it was a house in a historic district. “It’s not personal,” Blechman said. “They chose to buy a historic home in a neighborhood with established guidelines.” Some residents have questioned the Landmarks Commission in postponing discussion for the project. “The Landmarks Commission was formed to enforce the guidelines and protect the historic district,” said Candace Veach, a renter who lives on Third Street. “If they’re not going to do that, then why do they exist?” The project was continued in June after the commission gave the architect several recommendations to improve the project. The meeting on Monday marked the second time it was continued. Fresco defended the commission, saying that it wouldn’t be fair to throw out the project without giving the applicant time to come into compliance. “It’s always our wish to try to encourage people to comply,” she said. Another project within the historic district receiving some resistance from neighbors proposes demolishing an existing noncontributing house in favor of a two-story home on Second Street. Venice residents Mark Gorman and Beth Burns purchased the property last year and are hoping to receive approval by the Landmarks Commission next month in order to make their home a reality. The house Gorman and Burns want to build, however, has been criticized by some residents as being in the modernist style and out of tune with the character of the neighborhood, though opposition has been considerably less than that Woollen has faced. The couple has met with neighbors on several occasions and modified their project to include smaller windows and reclaimed wood, hoping to offer a simpler looking building. The existing structure currently sits between a parking lot and an empty lot. It’s two doors down from a preschool, housed in a landmarked building. “It’s improving,” Gorman said of the designs. “We’re trying to make it better.” The outrage by neighbors and campaign against the project caught Woollen by surprise. “I love the area. I’ve lived in this area a long time and it feels like home,” he said. “But it feels less like home every day.” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 17, 2007.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/111707.pdf?ref=smdp.com)