Hollywood Bowl: Goodbye and Farewell to an Icon

by Robert W. Nudelman

While the Los Angeles Phil­har­monic and Los Angeles County officials were busy publicizing the opening of their “instant landmark” Disney Hall downtown, they were also busy demolishing a real landmark with a history Disney Hall or any other such facility will never match—the 1929 Hollywood Bowl orchestra shell. Despite three years of court challenges by Hollywood Heritage, which kept the shell in existence during that time, demolition commenced just hours after the final concert on September 27.

On last battle was fought on September 26 by Hollywood Heritage to block the demolition with a temporary restraining order (TRO), but it ended in yet another bizarre court hearing. The case filed by our attorney, Lawrence Teeter, outlined how documents concerning the demolition schedule, project costs, and significant changes made to the original plans had been, and still were, being withheld from Hollywood Heritage. Numerous written requests for documents made pursuant to the Public Documents Request Act were met with requests for “further clarification,” although the requests were simple and obvious.

As stated in court by Hollywood Heritage, and denied there by the county, there was only $4 million in approved funds to build a project now budgeted over $18 million. Documents obtained in May verified this, as the county on February 28 voted to re-appropriate funds from other county park projects to make up the difference and to let the Philharmonic go to the state and grab another $9 million in state park bond monies.

By letting the Philharmonic negotiate, the process left the public eye. The county had been secretive in its February 28 vote, holding no public hearings to review how these re-appropriations would impact other county facilities, including funds slated for other improvements at the Bowl. To continue the public’s blackout on this deal, the contracts for construction were negotiated in secret by the Philharmonic, while we waited for the county’s approval; no one, including the project manager, having mentioned that the Philharmonic, not the county, was now in charge of the project.

Meanwhile, when asked to define the significant changes made to the plans at the February 28 vote, no answers were provided. These were made as two previous budgets were too high and needed to be stripped down to meet even the $18 million figure. Requests made even to this day have failed to provide a response as to what changes have been made. This was important as, beside withholding public documents, these changes could have altered the project enough to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. This would have opened the legal door to submit our plans to save the shell, restore it and provide the improvements required by the Philharmonic, all at a much lower cost. This is, after all, what our lawsuit was trying to do as we had been kept out of the original environmental review process.

The judge in this case, Judge William Rea, held what was, as far as anyone knows, a unique trial/hearing for the TRO. He asked the attorneys, ours and 5 of theirs, to go into the judge’s chambers first. Not unusual for a few minutes to clarify some points before the hearing. Instead, he asked Mr. Teeter why his client was opposed to the project, to which he responded that the issues at hand were more than just that and we had proposed to remedy the Philharmonic’s concerns.

Then a free-for-all began, 5 attorneys against one, as the judge sat there for 50 minutes. The county claimed that we were too late in filing for the TRO (the judge denied this). When questioned about why the county kept refusing our document requests, their attorney’s responded with “so what,” not even denying that they had withheld the evidence. This behavior and admissions would have been unconscionable in open court. But while in judge’s chambers, where there are no witnesses, no court reporters, and no record being kept. At the end of the session, the judge apologized to Mr. Teeter, but said he was “sorry” he could not grant a TRO, and that was the end of it. There was no public hearing, no reason given by the judge, just a couple of apologies and a ruling against us.
Any appeal after this point would have been remanded back to this judge, who obviously could not answer to his own decision, if it was his decision. A strong claim to make, but what happened afterward showed just how political this had become.

The judge was in the middle of a jury trial when our case was “heard” at 3:00 pm. Our papers were filed at 10:00 am that day allowing only the court clerks time to read the documents and inform the judge of the merits. After the attorneys returned to the court from the judge’s chambers, the clerk asked the attorney from Latham and Watkins (representing the Philharmonic) about filing their appeal. The attorney asked, “What appeal?”, the clerk responded “The one for the TRO,” and the attorney defiantly stated that the TRO had not been granted, to which the surprised clerk said “It hasn’t?” (This conversation took place a few feet from where I was sitting in the courtroom.) So the one person who had read the court documents felt that the TRO was going to be granted and had obviously advised the judge thus. Now the private hearing made sense, although equal protection under the law did not.

Even though the Philharmonic claimed that they would lose revenue next year if the new shell was delayed because of all the great publicity they would get, they have yet to utter one public word about the demolition. Even with the vast amount of media available during the opening of Disney Hall nothing was said about the Bowl. During the last two weeks of the season in mid-September, the program noted in the editorial comments that a new shell would be built but that it would keep the “existing 9 rings.” Though referring to the approximate design, for all intents and purposes it read as though the new shell was to be a modification of the old one, which would still be there. Deceptive to the end, the Philharmonic has been afraid to discuss this project on its merits at any time in public or with us.

So it was tragically fitting that this lawsuit, brought because of Hollywood Heritage and the public’s being kept out of the legal process, with a landmark’s fate and millions of taxpayer dollars being planned behind closed doors, should end that way. Behind a close door with no record, and apparently against the advice of the only people who had read the case.

This goes with the logic in the first case, where we lost as the judge somehow ruled that the 1929 shell had been built in 1980 and was not, therefore, protected under the laws we cited. The appeals court agreed, with a presiding judge who was so out of it she kept referring to our attorney as the county’s attorney (she had been ill for quite a while, had just returned, then passed away a short time after that court’s ruling).

Having been involved in this process, both representing Hollywood Heritage and as a designated party in the case (along with Friends of Santa Monica Mountains) from day one, and probably the reason why Hollywood Heritage was kept out of the environmental review process, I will make some final comments. Our attorney, Lawrence Teeter, did a tremendous job. I believe our legal arguments could not have been better, if only the judges had read them.
The court’s behavior and written rulings do not foster belief in its position to keep in check the activities of the other branches of government. The original ruling could not be believed when I showed it to several attorneys. The final hearing, behind closed doors, an action that no one had heard of before, was unfathomable (only myself and two people from the Philharmonic were in court to be denied hearing the arguments). As to the judge who couldn’t figure out who was speaking, it is hard to believe they could have been able to comprehend the case that they were ruling on. The cliché “the fix is in” comes to mind when reviewing the past three years of legal arguments.

Yet only by reopening the legal process for environmental review could we have made our position binding on the county to save the 1929 shell. All of that could have been done and decided on its merits within the first year, yet the county, and the Philharmonic refused to allow us to do so by not re-opening the review process.

Since this would have been cheaper and faster than the three year legal battle, why did they refuse? It can only be that they would have lost if the fate of the project, and the shell, were to be based on the merits of our version versus theirs. No other answer makes sense. It also would explain why they spent months negotiating with the Los Angeles Conservancy yet never said one word to Hollywood Heritage. And this code of silence must include the Conservancy who also refused to mention it to us that this process was ongoing and that they were making the counter proposal with absolutely no expertise of their own to base it on. This became a major argument in court as the Conservancy’s plan, worse than the original one, was constantly cited as compliance with historic preservation requirements. The Conservancy’s refusal to help with this battle and their recommendation to the National Trust to also say out of it are inexcusable. We will work with them again, but this is a deep scar on their relationships with Hollywood. County Supervisor Yaroslavsky, who led the battle, should be remembered by everyone at election time as the man who demolished the Hollywood Bowl shell.

A special thanks to a close friend of mine, E.H.B. “Chip” Monck, production designer, lighting designer, and tour manager with over 40 years of experience, including Woodstock, the Rolling Stones, Monterey Pop and Jazz, Newport Folk and Jazz, The Hollywood Bowl, Filmores East and West, and over 3,000 concerts. He works in Australia now, but advised me and faxed documentation backing our proposals. As the most experienced person in the world with outdoor venues, his advice and legal declarations were far above any evidence provided to back up the proposed project. He also brought in several other experts to help with our plan, a veritable “hall of fame” of concert knowledge in all fields, so as to make our plan the best possible, if only we were allowed to persue it. He asked for no money for any of his time. During these past few months he continued to advise via phone and fax while his wife, Camille, was dying of cancer. Camille Monck was also a fighter and very supportive of this project. We thank them for their help and wish Chip and his family the best.

For myself, I will never visit the Bowl again, nor attend a Philharmonic, nor Hollywood Bowl Orchestra concert again. This is something I had enjoyed doing for many years. And I will watch with amusement when the county puts the screws to the Philharmonic as negotiations proceed for their contract renewal at the Bowl, which ends in 2005, something about “honor among thieves.”