Mr. W. Ono Ujor
City Planner

Community Redevelopment Agency
     of the City of Los Angeles                                                                                            July 3, 2006
354 South Spring St.
Suite 700
Los Angeles, California 90013

Attn: Mr. W. Ono Ujor

Re: Response to CRA/LA Negative Declaration For The Proposed Demolition of Existing Residential Structures at 5958-6012 Carlton Way in the Hollywood Redevelopment Area

Violation of CEQA and The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan

The above properties on Carlton Way consist of a 2-story apartment building at 5958 and four single-family residences from 6000-6012. All of these structures are designated as historic in the Community Redevelopment Plan and in the 1986 and 2003 Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) through their inclusion as part of the list of approximately 448 historic structures in the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. This is described as such in the 2003 FEIR. Page III. D-4 states: “There are approximately 448 properties in the Project Area that contain historic resources listed, or eligible for listing, on the California Register. This is based on an update of the historic surveys prepared for the Agency in 1985 and updated in 1994.” This list was again updated by the CRA in 2001 (page III.D-4).

The structures at 5958-6012 Carlton Way have been on all of these lists as eligible for designation as local landmarks in 1986 (which is consideration of the California Register), being upgraded to National Register significance (2D2) in 1994 and 2003, and are included in the 448 buildings referred to in the 2003 FEIR. The 2003 FEIR refers to Section 511 of the Plan which “addresses the preservation, rehabilitation, and retention of properties within the Project Area” (page III.D-4). It goes on to state how Section 511 deals with de-designation from the list and the process required. Preparing an MND as done here would supersede the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, and is therefore not allowed. It may be used as part of the dedesignation process, but the historic evaluation report must be prepared by a third party not employed by the developer.

Nowhere in Section 511 of the Plan, nor in the 2003 FEIR, is there any discussion or allowance for the owner of one of the 448 historically designated properties to propose their own determination of the property’s historic significance. This is an obvious conflict of interest, is in violation of both CEQA (through the approved 2003 FEIR), and state redevelopment law (through the Plan) and denial of due process as the list was publicly prepared, with comment possible, where the new evaluation process provides no formal or legal procedure in which to challenge it, or even notification of when it is occurring.

Failings of the Historic Evaluation (HE)

The HE fails to recognize the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and the 1986 and 2003 EIRs, as previously discussed. The HE instead bases its conclusions on comparisons to other historic categories (Federal, State, City) ignoring the actually CRA-approved status condition. It does not question nor deny the finding of either EIR thereby making any rebuke of the CRA designation unchallenged in the HE. This would be the first step in dedesignation, and the CRA designation is the one that would be challenged.

The summation of the HE points are to be found in the MND on page 11, “V Cultural Resources.” The primary argument made here is, #1: “Many of the properties on Carlton Avenue (sic) have been demolished or significantly altered, thereby diminishing historic context in the immediate area.” This is simply not true. Reviewing the CRA maps shows that besides the five subject structures, the bungalow courtyard complex across the street and three of the remaining six buildings listed on this block are intact and have not changed since the 2003 EIR which was the source of the most recent historic designations (2D2).

The three buildings down the block were demolished during the past year. Obviously the demolitions should not have been allowed, especially if these actions triggered the dedesignation of many more historic structures. By not having considered the significance of the negative impacts accordingly, lead agency, the CRA, failed to provide a legally correct MND for their demolition. That illegal act is now being cited to allow for demolition of the rest of the neighborhood. An illegal act cannot be used to justify another act as legal, as the current MND attempts to do.

Anyway, approximately 75-80% of the historic buildings remain and have been in the same condition for several decades as noted in the HE. The district, which is not defined in the HE or MND is more than adequate to remain in effect as long as the subject buildings are preserved.

If the district is defined as along Carlton Way only, this would then be the conclusion. But the HE refers to the district being adjacent, and part of the Selma-LaBaig district to the immediate south. This district is fully intact and has suffered no loss of structures since 2003. That district contains over 30 houses. When tied to Carlton Way, as in the implication made here in the HE, buildings within the combined districts are over 95% intact since 2003. (The 1994 survey cited in the HE is for reference to the district definition, but the actual 2003 survey is the pertinent one under CEQA.)

When this, or other districts, were protected in the EIR the public has moral and legal rights to expect the city to protect these structures as adopted and defined under CEQA. To allow for demolition based on the city’s having previously broken this public trust with other historic properties is indefensible and serves as precedent to invalidate the 2003 EIR and the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan per the city’s actions.

The district argument is even more significant when comparing it to individual nominations of structures. Districts, including those with intrusions, are reviewed differently:

“For a district to retain integrity as a whole, the majority of the components that make up the district’s historic character must possess integrity even if they are individually undistinguished.” (page 46, National Register Bulletin 15, emphasis added).

To reevaluate the structures as individual designations then deny them that status in the HE as well as denying their status under a district designation for the same reasons is a misrepresentation of the Federal standards. District and individual designation criteria are different as described above. No specifics are given in the MND or the HE as to why a district (whether Carlton Way or Selma-LaBaig) is no longer viable, no list of demolished vs. remaining sites is given, no description of the district is even made, just a baseless conclusion that the district somehow would no longer exist. That is not a satisfactory answer or conclusion under CEQA and therefore cannot be used to justify the MND.

The houses themselves have had minimal changes, with none mentioned in the HE as having occurred since the time of designation in 2003. More significant is that these houses were built between 1908-1910 while the apartment building dates back to 1915 (dates are from the HE). This only adds to the rarity of such a grouping in Hollywood as these are some of the oldest homes in the area. This helps to explain their being considered as part of the adjacent Selma-LaBaig district.

Conclusion

Based on the requirements of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and its associated EIRs (1986 & 2003), the MND is invalid and without basis. When reviewing the factual conditions of the subject properties and the actual district as referenced, the HE and therefore the MND ignore the historic significance of these subject properties and therefore do not correctly acknowledge a “Potentially Significant Impact” under Section V of the MND. Such acknowledgement would trigger an EIR under CEQA, not an MND.

For the aforementioned reasons and information, Hollywood Heritage insists that the MND must be rejected as inadequate and unlawful.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Nudelman
Director of Preservation Issues
Hollywood Heritage

jc/RWN