January 19, 2006

Re: Response to Requested Variances and Related MND for 1802 and 1810-16 Whitley Avenue, Hollywood, California 90028

Tentative Tract Map No. 63475 ZA-2005-6712-ZV-ZAA-ZAD ENV-2005-6696-MND

Hollywood Heritage demands that any and all variances and permits for this project and these sites be denied. This due to the blatant non-compliance of this project with the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and its February 2003 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment. As such, any approvals for the proposed project are in violation of the Plan, including state redevelopment laws, the Los Angeles City Council, and CEQA.

The main basis for this is that both apartment buildings were designated as “Historical Resources” by the CRA in their FEIR for the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan’s approval in the May 1986 document. Both addresses are included as such in the Determination of Eligibility Report attached to the 1986 FEIR. This is again used for the 2003 FEIR in the Cultural Resources Section, “Historic Resources Identification (pages III.D.4-6). Here it is stated that “there are approximately 448 properties in the project area that contain historic resources and that this is based on an update of the historic surveys prepared for the Agency in 1985 (previously cited here) and updated in 1994.” Table III.D-1 then lists the categories for “Significant Historic Resources in the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area.” This is the breakdown of the 448 total including 106 “Resources” listed as “5S” and 92 as “5D,” or almost half of the list being category “5” structures.

In this designation of Historic Resources all categories 1-5 are given equal protection under CEQA in this FEIR. There is no differentiation between them in the Determination of Eligibility Report. Both properties are given “5D” levels of significance, thereby including them as “Historic Resources” as defined by the 2003 FEIR.

As such, the process to demolish Historic Resources as described on page ES-20 of the 2003 FEIR and in Section 511 of the Redevelopment Plan has not been followed. There is no procedure described in either document that allows for “further studies” to be done so as to second guess or amend the Plan and the FEIR. The determination of the list was approved by the Los Angeles City Council and the 2003 FEIR certified under CEQA. Any attempt to remove a designated “Historic Resource” is a violation of the Redevelopment Plan and the 2003 FEIR and is therefore illegal, unless the prescribed process is used. In this case, it has not been used, and therefore the process to de-designate is illegal.

Even if no Historic Resources existed at these sites the proposed project would cause a severe impact as designed, according to the 2003 FEIR. Under “Environmental Impact, Threshold of Significance” (pages III, D-8&9) it is explained how new construction can have a severe negative impact:

“Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource means demolition . . . of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historic resource would be materially impacted.” (emphasis added.)

This is further defined on page III.D-8&9 “Project Impacts, Historical Resources”:

Typical project impacts that may disrupt or adversely affect . . . a property of historic or cultural significance or cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” may include . . . incompatible massing, size, scale, or architectural style of new development on adjacent properties.”

The proposed project is the perfect example of this type of adverse impact. The 2-story c. 1916 apartment building adjacent on the north is also listed as a “5D” Historic Resource, and 3 apartment buildings opposite it on Whitley are designated as category 4 and 1737 Whitley is also a City Cultural Historic Landmark as of last year. Whereas the sizes may be similar to the proposed project, the architectural styles are quite the opposite. Built in the 1920s in either Spanish Colonial Revival or French Chateauesque, the style and detailing are the opposite of the proposed glass box design. As the above described references from the 2003 FEIR are taken from the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (b), the proposed project is further in opposition to meeting the requirements of CEQA.

Other concerns are that the proposed project does not meet the conditions of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and 2003 FEIR by not being able to comply with the Hollywood Boulevard District Urban Design Guidelines (Section 506.2.1 of the Plan and A-47-48 of the FEIR), the Hollywood Transportation and Parking Plans (Section 518.1 and 518.2 of the Plan and A47-48 of the FEIR) and guidelines outlined in the FEIR page III.C-17 “Development Density in Residential Areas.” None of these plans exist in a legally enforceable or ordinance based format. Therefore it is impossible for the public, the CRA, city officials, or even the developer to know if conditions and guidelines have been met according to the Plan or the FEIR.

Since these many issues cannot be determined at this time, there is no way to verify, in a legal sense or otherwise, if the proposed project is in compliance with the Plan. This is reaffirmed in Section 506.2.1 “Hollywood Boulevard District” as follows: “All new development in the District shall meet the design guidelines to ensure that the objectives of the District are achieved.” (emphasis added.) The proposed project is in Sub Area 2 of the District. No guidelines means it is impossible to meet their requirements. Therefore the project is in non-compliance with the Plan.

The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)

First it should be noted that nowhere else in the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, nor the 2003 FEIR is the process used here to create an MND described or even mentioned. The correct legal process is described previously in the response. Even more deplorable is that while an historic review (or whatever it’s supposed to be) is performed on the extant structures, no review is given on the impacts of the new structure. That specifically is required under CEQA and the Redevelopment Plan, as previously stated. Furthermore, no discussion in the MND is made as to how the proposed project meets the requirements of the several plans over which this project falls under the final jurisdiction of, as shown previously. Again, these are requirements of the Plan and the FEIR and yet they are ignored. The only study done is one that has no legal standing while those that do are not mentioned.

These issues alone invalidate the MND under CEQA. But to humor (it’s hard to take it seriously) those involved with the MND’s preparation, some comments will be made. Obviously the impacts on
V. Cultural Resources, as being mitigated in the MND is refuted by the facts. The negative impact is significant to Historic Resources as defined in the 2003 FEIR.

To attempt to get around this legal point, the MND proposes to amend the Redevelopment Plan and the 2003 FEIR by arguing against the validity of the impacted structures’ historical significance. Much verbiage is given as to how categories of designation have changed since the FEIR was certified, but no explanation of what the new designation would be on a comparative basis. Even so, the FEIR is very clear that these structures listed form the 1985 survey are protected Historic Resources; and that is based on the building, not the periodic changing of letters and numbers.

Page 1 of the MND report by Jones and Stokes (J&S Report) refers to compliances with CEQA in general without any mention of complying with the 2003 FEIR or the Redevelopment Plan, both of which further define conditions beyond the general CEQA guidelines for the Project Area as shown herein. Apparently no attempt was made to comply with the Plan or the FEIR. This also invalidates the MND.

On page 14 of the J&S Report it states that their “new” finding that 1810 Whitley is a category “5” resource (same as in 1985) and that “this finding is in disagreement with the finding of the 2003 survey, which found that it met California Register Criterion 3.” As with all other contradictions between the MND and other legal documents, no further explanation or rebuttal is given. All the more intriguing here as the 2003 survey (done for the FEIR to update the 1985 survey) was prepared by Myra Frank and Associates, which a year later became Jones and Stokes. Why then do they refute their previous finding to such a significant degree? Is it because the developer is now paying for the survey, not the CRA? Where then, is the credibility of Jones and Stokes if even they admit that their work on a specific site is poor or simply inaccurate?

Has something happened to 1810 Whitley to change the 2003 designation, now part of the 2003 FEIR? According to the J&S Report page 12 “The building appears to be unaltered and, retains all aspects of integrity.” So nothing has changed to the building between the two surveys. The only loss of integrity is with those preparing such a blatantly falsified MND as this one.

The apartment’s significance is based on it maintaining its integrity after 85 years, and it appears that it also retains much of its 1921 interior architecture intact. The building does show a design, scale, materials, and use that show a time of Hollywood’s development that has been all but eliminated in recent years. In the 200 acres of the Hollywood Boulevard District, maybe 6 or 7 such buildings remain, all threatened with similar MNDs, and maybe 2 or 3 with this much integrity remain.

This type of significance is described in the National Register Bulletin 15 on page 9:

How to Evaluate a Property Within Its Historic Context

Historic Contexts are historical patterns that can be identified through consideration of the history of the property and the history of the surrounding area. In accordance with the National Register criteria, the historic context may relate to one of the following:

• An event, a series of events or patterns of an area’s development
(Criteria A).

The J&S Report only refers to the “event” part but ignores the rest, which is applicable to this structure. All the more so as one sees the evolution on Whitley from single family homes to the first apartments (which were built north of Yucca as here) and their conversion to larger 6-12 story apartments of exotic detailed architecture, all on two blocks between Hollywood Boulevard and Franklin Avenue. This complete historic context does not exist anywhere else in Hollywood (2-story apartments such as this were few to start with as by 1923 taller apartment buildings were being built). Therefore the significance under CEQA and the 2003 category “3” rating. Once again, the MND fails to accurately respond to CEQA

Conclusion

The MND and the requested variances must all be rejected for the multitude of reasons stated and described herein. The process itself is illegal as used here and the conditions of the 2003 FEIR, the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, and CEQA in general are either ignored or blatantly broken. As to the impact of such actions, it should once again be stated from the Plan:

Section 407.1.4. Development Plans

All development plans (whether public or private) shall be subject to review and approval by the Agency. All development in the project area must conform to this Redevelopment Plan. (emphasis added.)

Section 511 Preservation and Rehabilitation and Retention of Properties:

No application for any grading, foundation, demolition, building, or any other kind of permit filed with the city shall be considered to conform with this Redevelopment Plan unless and until the requirements of this section are satisfied.

The rules and conditions are clear and have been approved and certified. Any attempt to illegally amend the FEIR or the Redevelopment Plan as the MND and the variances proposed herein will be met with legal action to defend the 2003 FEIR and the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Nudelman
Director of Preservation Issues
Hollywood Heritage

jc/RWN