In what was an extraordinary lack of understanding of facts and the laws of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Judge David Yaffe denied the claims of Hollywood Heritage’s lawsuit to protect the 1929 Hollywood Bowl orchestra shell and other CEQA issues. The ruling came down at the April 26 Superior Court hearing attended by over 30 members of Hollywood Heritage. Hollywood Heritage plans to appeal the case.

Despite written and verbal arguments by Hollywood Heritage’s attorney, Lawrence Teeter, and documents prepared by the defendant, Los Angeles County, that the shell was built in 1929, Judge Yaffe ruled it "in fact dates from only 1980," and was therefore not "historic." This was surprising since the triggering of the CEQA lawsuit was caused by the shell’s historic status. Hollywood Heritage, the county, and the judge would not have been there if, in fact, the shell had been built in 1980.

This refusal to realize when the shell was built caused Judge Yaffe to rule on the case as if it were an aesthetic issue, thereby eliminating most of the shell’s protection under CEQA. He did question the appearance of the new light and sound towers to be built, but he refused to clarify the mitigation that would be used. The approved plan only states that these 84 ft. towers (replacing the existing 32 ft. towers), would be covered "by vegetation." No description or details as to the means, type, height, whether trees or vines, how long it would take for them to grow 84 ft., etc, were given. Therefore, there is no way to legally enforce this mitigation claim.

Concerning the issue of why this new, larger shell was necessary, the attorneys for the Los Angeles Philharmonic, Latham and Watkins, responded. They stated at the hearing that it was a "logistics problem," "moving big props and equipment, especially during performances." "The backstage area doesn’t have any big openings, so they have to go through the cumbersome process of coming around the front. The new project, proposed project, is going to have an elephant door in the back so that it can be done where it ought to be done." The "elephant door" needs to be 20-feet tall, and the existing back wall is 18_-feet tall, according to the plans.

The orchestras’ state that they need 3,000 sq. ft. of performance space while the current shell provides only 2,600. Hollywood Heritage’s alternate plan would add two arches to the front of the shell, thereby extending the shell and widening it at the opening, while preserving the original. This would expand the shell’s square footage to 4,000. But to make the shell usable for the "full range of activities" to be occurring there, 7,200 sq. ft. of space is required, 150% more than what the orchestras’ claim to need.

This requirement is therefore beyond the scope and need of the Los Angeles Philharmonic and Hollywood Bowl orchestras, but is apparently required for the "full range of activities" that was cited during the CEQA review. What the "full range of activities" are is not defined, nor would Judge Yaffe respond to that question in court. Yet, that is obviously the reason a new, much larger shell is wanted, not for the Philharmonic.

The same can be said for the necessity of a 20-foot high elephant door–its description is for purposes that have nothing to do with a Philharmonic concert, but it does meet the requirements of large rock and pop concerts. This argument is again repeated for the construction of new 84-ft. tall light and sound towers, a new 14-ft. high sound wall, and a hanging capacity over the stage of 125,000 pounds of lights and equipment contrasted to the current 7,500 pounds.

This becomes more obvious when it is known that the Los Angeles Philharmonic’s contract with the county for the Hollywood Bowl expires at the end of 2005. At that point, the Bowl is up for public bid, and any promoter can take control of this much larger facility by outbidding the Philharmonic, which does not have the financial muscle to compete with private promoters. It should also be noted that the report prepared for the new shell’s requirements to house "leased" events (i.e. non-orchestra) was by Universal Concerts, operators of the Universal Amphitheater and other similar venues.

When Mr. Teeter argued this change of use and that the new facility was being planned for "other events such as rock concerts," Judge Yaffe’s only response was "Is that bad?" It was not a question of bad or good, but the only legal reason given to demolish the shell was to accommodate the acoustic needs of the Philharmonic and Hollywood Bowl orchestras, nothing else (the "Statement of Overriding Considerations").

Hollywood Heritage’s plan provided the orchestra with 30% more performance space than they required. Moving the "acoustic halo" approximately 12 inches forward, or reducing its diameter by 12 inches, allowed for the acoustic plan proposed by the orchestra. Meeting these requirements would thereby have nullified the legal claim that this could not be done and would thus act to preserve the 1929 shell. Unless, of course, this new shell wasn’t being built for the Philharmonic, but rather for the new tenants in 2006.

Hollywood Heritage filed this lawsuit to protect and restore the historic orchestra shell, as well as to meet the requirements of the orchestras. We also oppose the new shell as it will most certainly result in fewer, and eventually no, orchestra concerts, as more profitable performers move in.

Serious areas of concern outside of the shell and Philharmonic issues deal with how this CEQA review was handled. These reviews are required to protect and/or mitigate damage to historic structures throughout California. To leave these CEQA violations unchallenged, especially when prepared for a governmental agency (Los Angeles County) and a large legal firm known for representing major development projects (Latham and Watkins) would create dangerous precedents against historic preservation.

The further convoluting of the law in the trial court, and various other attempts to weaken these laws only demonstrates the overall importance of this case. If this structure is not historic to the court, then what is?

Of the numerous CEQA issues cited, the lack of adequate notification and the misleading naming of the project are very important. Hollywood Heritage’s name was crossed off the notification list for this project, although we are a "concerned organization" and our museum is located across the street (we should have had two notices for each hearing, etc.). Posting was not done at the entrance of the Bowl, but rather up the hill by the office and museum, during the off-season (for 3 meetings 1200 notifications were mailed, no one came to the first two meetings and only 7 came to the third, none from Hollywood).

Even then, this demolition project was always called a "rehabilitation" project, though the definition of these two words are opposites, and this is spelled out in their legal definitions as used by the U.S. Department of the Interior (Supervisor Yaroslavsky called this "nit-picking"). Even the county motion to pass this demolition plan was still called "a rehabilitation of the historic orchestra shell."

This was done to not only mislead the public, but to obtain Park Bond money that was voted to "rehabilitate" and "restore" the Bowl’s facilities, not demolish them. This is nothing less than fraud, but when asked to comment during the court hearing or in his written brief, Judge Yaffe said nothing.

These precedents cannot be allowed to stand or else any historic building in the state is in jeopardy. Unless, one considers non-notification of public hearings and deliberate false descriptions of projects acceptable practices.