March 1, 2006

Objections To March 2, 2006 Agenda Item No.1 Re Resolution of Necessity to Condemn Property at 1636-1640 N. Vine Street, Hollywood, California, 90028, “Environmental Action” For The Project, And Resolution Approving Application to California Debt Limit Allocation Committee And For Various Actions Relating To Issuance Of Tax-Exempt Multi-Family Housing Revenue Bonds

The board of Hollywood Heritage unanimously voted at their February 21 meeting to oppose the use of eminent domain by the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (CRA) to obtain the property at 1636-1640 Vine Street in Hollywood , known as the Bernard Luggage Building . The board opposes this action because of the use of eminent domain itself for the purposes of a private development as opposed to public use. Further, the board opposes this particular use because it would result in the demolition planned for this contributing structure to the Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment National Register Historic District (HBCED)

The use of eminent domain for this project was triggered, in part, by the CRA and the MTA failing to note that the subject building was a federally designated historic building when it sent out its project RFP for the site. This resulted in proposals with the building demolished and the MTA/CRA did not correct this error in a timely manner which thereby allowed for developers to proceed without the legally reviewed notification (the CRA even paid for the study that created the HBCED). This resulted in a project where the preservation of the façade becomes an afterthought (after Hollywood Heritage notified the CRA of its omission) as opposed to a landmark to be preserved, as was done with the adjacent Taft Building , which has the exact same legal protection within the HBCED. The “error” resulted in the current situation of the proposed eminent domain and demolition actions.

The CRA, City of Los Angeles Planning Department, and the developer's attorney have all come to a conclusion that involves the rewriting of federal law protecting this building. None of these local agencies or individuals have this right, legally or otherwise. Specifically, they are arguing that by demolishing a contributing building to the National Register Historic District of all but its façade will maintain the building within the legal definition of the National Register.

This is false. The National Register Bulletin 15 clearly demonstrates this:

“Buildings eligible for the National Register must include all of their basic structural elements. Parts of buildings, such as interiors, facades , or wings, are not eligible independent of the rest of the existing building. The whole building must be considered . . .

If a building has lost its basic structural elements, it is usually considered a ‘ruin' and is categorized as such.” (page 4, emphasis added.)

It is clear that the demolition of 98% of this building (120' long) to a 2-3' deep façade would not meet the federal definition of a building, but may qualify it as a “ruin.” The proposed demolition of the Bernard Luggage Building , which would save only the façade, is therefore a defacto delisting of the building from the National Register Historic District without any federal review or approval. Again, the local authorities proposing this delisting have no authority to do so. A “Statement of Overriding Considerations” is a CEQA or state determination, not a federal one, and therefore has no standing to this issue.

If this action were to be allowed, the city could wipe out the National Register District by preserving bits and pieces of it (next case might be just a wall or room). This would indeed leave Hollywood 's history as a “ruin” by federal definition and in the eyes of the world. This is therefore a dangerous precedent that cannot be allowed.

It would appear that the CRA/MTA, city, etc. know of the protection for buildings as they constantly refer to it for the adjacent Taft Building . Yet somehow there is an attempt to suggest that contributing buildings in the HBCED have different levels of importance. This is not so; no such difference exists under federal law. These two have the same level of protection as each other and any other building within the HBCED, including the El Capitan and Grauman's Chinese theaters. An attack on the protective status of the Bernard Luggage Building is an attack on the legality of the protective status of all buildings within the HBCED. Again, this is a dangerous legal precedent that the city and its various agencies is taking to attempt to de-list part or possibly all, of the HBCED and Hollywood Heritage will take what action is necessary to prevent the wholesale gutting of the protection of our historic resources.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Nudelman
Director of Preservation Issues
Hollywood Heritage

jc/RWN