State Bar # 83065
3580 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Attorney for Petitioners and Plaintiffs
ORIGINAL FILED JAN 0 3 2001
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CENTRAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OFPETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
DATE: February 20, 2001 TIME: 9:30 A.M.
HOLLYWOOD HERITAGE, INC., a non-profit corporation,
ROBERT W. NUDELMAN,FRIENDS OF THE SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS PARKS AND-SEASHORE, a non-profit corporation,
Petitioners and PlaintiffsVS.
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPT: 86
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
LOS ANGELES PHILHARMONIC ASSOCIATION, DOES 11--20
Real Parties in Interest.
Case Assigned to David P. Yaffe
RESPONDENTS HAVE PREJUDICIALLY ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION BY ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS THAT ARE UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
THE COUNTY FAILED TO EXAMINE A REASONABLE RANGE OF PROJECT ALTER14ATIVES AS REQUIRED BY CEQA AND CERTIFIED A SHAM EIR REFLECTING PREJUDGMENT RATHER THAN A GOOD FAITH ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
III THE COUNTY VIOLATED CEQA BY FAILING TO TO INSURE IMPLEMENTATIO14 OF ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES AND BY FAILING TO ADOPT MEANINGFUL MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONDING TO PROPERLY ASSESSED IMPACTS.
IV THE COUNTY AND THE ASSOCIATION VIOLATED CEQA BY PROVIDING A MISLEADING PROJECT DESCRIPTION ANDBY DENYING TIMELY NOTICE OF THE PROJECT TO PETITIONERS.
Citizens for ~Lualitv Growth v. Mount Shasta, 198 Cal. App. 3d 433 (1988)
Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. y. 32nd District Agricultural Assn, 42 Cal. 3d 929 (1986)
Count V of Invo v. City of Los Angeles 71 Cal. App. 3d 185
Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angelest 83 Cal App. 4th 1252 (2000
Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376 (1988)
McQueen v. Board of Directors, 101 Cal. App. 3d 1136 (1988)
People v. County of Kern, .39 Cal. App. 3d 830 (1974)
Sierra Club v. Contra Cost County, 10 Cal.App. 4th 1212 (1992)
Western States Petroleum Association v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. 4th 559 (1995)
This case concerns the Environmental Impact Report prepared and certified in connection with the Hollywood Bowl Shell Rehabilitation Project.. The EIR was prepared for the Respondents County of Los Angeles and the Department of Public Works along with the Real Party Los Angeles Philharmonic Association. (1 AR 162). Petitioners seeking to set aside the EIR, findings, project approval are Hollywood Heritage Inc., Friends of the Santa Monica Mounts Parks and Seashore, Inc. and Robert Nudelman, President of Hollywood Heritage.
The Draft EIR was released on April 13, 2000. The project herein at issue includes outright demolition of the existing historic orchestra shell of the Hollywood Bowl and its replacement by substantially taller and larger structure. It includes a substantial increase in overhead lighting capacity at the Hollywood Bowl from the current capacity of 4.5 tons of lighting equipment to the planned capacity of 62.5 tons of overhead lighting equipment. The project also involves construction of four (4) 84--foot tall lighting and sound towers facing and on both sides of the orchestra shell, towering over the currently--existing and to--be--demolished 30--foot tall light housings along with three (3) 84--foot tall sound towers behind the shell. In addition, the project includes the planned construction of a 14--foot tall and an approximately 1800--foot long masonry wall along the south side of the facility as a planned sound mitigation measure.
I The EIR for the project was certified and the project--was adopted by Respondent Board of Supervisors at a public hearing held on September 12, 2000. (1 AR 24--92). Respondent Board found that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and adopted findings and a statement of overriding considerations. (4 AR 1082). A notice of determination announcing the foregoing was filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk's office on September 13, 2000. (1 AR 16). Petitioners contend for reasons stated below that the EIR, findings and project approval violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Health and Safety Code S--921000 et sea., and constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion. These contentions and additional facts are discussed below.
1. RESPONDENTS HAVE PREJUDICIALLY ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION BY ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS THAT ARE UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE The County has adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations which provides: (The existing acoustical shell and stage are incapable of providing the appropriate acoustical environment for the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra and Hollywood Bowl Orchestra. Despite repeated efforts to correct the acoustics in 1947, 1953, 1959,1970, 1972 and 1980, the existing acoustical shell does not achieve acceptable standards for artists and musicians to produce performances of comparable or superior quality to other outdoor venues. (4 AR 1082). Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines specifically provides that a statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County, 10 Cal.App. 4th 1212, 12~2--1224 (1992)). No substantial evidence in the record supports the County's Assertion that the existing facility will not allow performances of comparable or superior quality to other outdoor venues. The record contains no ranking or comparative analysis of outdoor facilities of this type. Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations fails under section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Indeed, the record does not even support the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this project. The Discussion following section 15093 of the Guidelines states:
The court in Citizens for Quality Growth v. Mount Shasta, (1988) 198 Cal. App. 3d 433, held that when an agency approves a project that will significantly affect the environment, CEQA places the burden on the approving agency to affirmatively show that it has considered the identified means (mitigation and/or alternatives) of lessening or avoiding the project's significant effects and to explain its decisionallowing those adverse changes to occur. In other words, an agency may only get to overriding considerations after the agency has made the appropriate findings; then, and only then, may an agency go on to explain why a project may go forward notwithstanding its effects. In an apparent effort to comply with this requirement, the County has adopted the following finding:
The Maximum Shell Conservation Alternative is a minimum--intensity Alternative that would maintain the, existing acoustical shell structure and iconography while adding two new arches to the front of the acoustical shell. This Alternative is not capable of providing superior acoustics for the conductor and performers. This failure is related to the inability of the proposed shell revisions to fully accommodate the necessary acoustical envelope. (4 AR 1063). However, this statement is impeached by the EIR, which makes clear that except for two small corners at the far rear of the shell, virtually the entirety of the optimal acoustical envelope would be contained within the Maximum Shell Conversion alternative shell design. (2 AR 406). This contrasts markedly with the existing facility, through the rear of which the envelope virtually protrudes across the entire width of the shell and a substantial distance behind it. (4 AR 922). The County has provided no studies which confirm its assertions about the acoustical envelope, including the claim it must advance before this court that the small portions of the envelope virtually protruding from the rear of the Maximum Shell Conversation design render this alternative materially inferior to the project design from an acoustical standpoint. The glaring absence of supporting data or studies means but one thing: the EIR's assertions and the County's findings are pure conclusions. This will not do under CEQA. As the Supreme Court noted in the seminal case of Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the Universitv of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376 (1988):
We do not impugn the integrity of the Regents, but neither can we countenance a result that would require blind trust by the public, especially in light of CEQA's fundamental goal that the public be fully informed as to the environmental consequences of action by,their public officials. To facilitate CEQA's informational role, the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions.' (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Assn, (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929, 935 [231 Cal. Rptr. 748, 727 P. 2d 1029] People v. County of Kern, supra, 39 Cal. App. 3d 830, 841--842 (conclusory statements fail to crystallize issues]; see also,Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta, supra, 198 Cal. App. 3d 433, 441 [agency's findings under section 21081 as to mitigation must be sufficiently detailed.) An EIR must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project. (Laurel Heights, supra, 404--405). The Supreme Court further noted: I[W]hatever is required to be considered in an EIR must be in that formal report; what any official might have known from other writings or oral presentations cannot supply what is lacking in the report. (Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange, supra, 118 Cal. App. 3d 818, 831. Heights, supra, 405). (LaurelThe County's findings run afoul of these principles. The Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are unsupported by substantial evidence. Petitioners are entitled to a writ as requested.
II TO EXAMINE--A REASONABLE RANGE OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AS REQUIRED BY CE AND CERTIFIED A BASELESS EIR REFLECTING PREJUDGMENT RATHER THAN A GOOD FAITH ANALYSISAND CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
The County's failure to seriously and in good faith consider an . alternative that would preserve the shell is an outgrowth of the fact that long before the DEIR was prepared, a decision had actually been reached to destroy the shell. At the public hearing on September 12, 2000 at which the project was approved, Supervisor Yarolavsky acknowledged as much by stating that the process of shell replacement . . . began in 1995 . . .
Then in 1996, the voters. . . voted to approve the bond that [financed] . . . the Hollywood Bowl shell Replacement Program. (1 AR 24, 51--52). Actually, the plan to replace the shell with a New Shell originated with the Association's 1993 Master Plan adopted by telephonic vote of its board members without a public hearing. (11 AR 2911, 2912, 2918). On September 1, 1999, the company which prepared the EIR concluded that conservation of the existing acoustical shell at the Hollywood Bowl is not a feasible means of accomplishing most of the basic objectives of the project. (6 AR 1697). The DEIR was released on April 13, 2000, (1 AR 162), and the document's discussion of alternatives was colored by prejudgment. The closest alternative to shell preservation other than the no project alternatives was desiqnated as the Maximum Shell Conservation alternative,, which, as has already been shown, was described in a manner that led* to an unsupported conclusion that it did not provide a superior acoustical shell that achieves acceptable standards for artists and musicians to produce performances of comparable or superior quality to other outdoor venues. (1 AR 377). The lack of good faith by the County and the Association in thus characterizing this alternative has been demonstrated above and is also glowingly illustrated by an open letter to Bowl patrons written in 1985 by Los Angeles Philharmonic Association Executive Director Ernest Fleishmann. In this letter, Mr Fleishmann stated that the New York Times audio expert had characterized the Bowl sound system at that time as:
far superior in tonal balance, localization, and general naturalness of sound to any other outdoor installation I had known. Moreover,, he concluded, ,the basic musicality of the sound pervaded the entire listening area, from the front row to the remotest locations. (Petitioner Exhibit attached to Nudelman Declaration, excerpt from Hollywood Bowl program for Summer of 1985).
The EIR's failure to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project as illustrated by its unfair dismissal of shell preservation renders the EIR baseless and resulting from prejudgment. The reason is that, as has beer shown above, the decision to replace the shell, i.e., destroy the shell, had actually been reached years earlier. This clearly violates CEQA, as the Supreme Court was quick to point out in Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376 (1988):
ICEQA requires that an agency determine whether a project may have a significant impact, and thus whether an EIR is required, before it approves that
This . document could have been included in the Administrative Record had not the County and the Association. unfairly denied notice to and misled Petitioners and others b~ means addressed elsewhere in this brief. The inclusion of this document and others cited herein is therefore requested at this time due to reasons set forth below. project.' [citation] . . . The Guidelines provide. that Before granting any approval of a project subject to CEQA, every lead agency. shall consider a final EIR. . .(Guidelines, section 15004, subd. (a), italics added.) A fundamental purpose of an EIR is it to provide decision makers with information they can use in deciding whether to approve a proposed project, not to inform them of the environmental effects of projects that they have already approved. If post approval environmental review were allowed, EIR's [sic] would likely become nothing more than post hoc rationalizations to support action already taken. We have expressly condemned this use of EIR's [sic]. (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal. 3d, 394). If the EIR at issue in this case had not been prepared as a 11post hoc rationalization(] to support action already [decided upon[,] (Laurel Heights, supra, 394, it would have contained a good faith discussion of a reasonable range or project alternatives. CEQA requires no less, as the Supreme Court made clear in Laurel Heights, sup ra, as follows:
[N]umerous CEQA provisions require that an EIR adequately describe feasible alternatives.(406). The Supreme Court summarized those provisions as follows: The Guidelines require that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly objections to the Maximum Shell Conversation alternative. Plainly, that alternative was unfairly described in a way that simply validated the plan to demolish--the shell. This is completely contrary to CEQA, as the foregoing demonstrates.
There is a reason for the prejudgment demonstrated above: money. In the Project Formulation Document, it is represented that the orchestra and chorus together need 3000 square feet of space. (6 AR 1624). The no project alternative provides 2639 square feet of stage area, and the project provides 7093 square feet. (1 AR 379). The Maximum Shell Conservation alternative provides 4069 square feet, (2 AR 379), which is more than adequate for the orchestra and chorus. (6 AR 1624). In an apparent effort to meet this observation, the DEIR adds that the number 4069 Does Not Accommodate Staging. What does this mean? The document does not answer this question. However, the DEIR does state that the Maximum Shell Conservation does not provide effective lighting of the stage for the full range of activities supported by the Hollywood Bowl. (2 AR 378). The meaning of this undefined phrase full range of activities supported by the Hollywood Bowl can be gleaned from yet another portion of the record, 7 AR 1918--22, a document entitled Analysis of Lease Event Consideration for Options 1, 2 and 3. The document is prepared by BSP Universal Concerts and does not even address the Maximum Shell Conservation Alternative. The events discussed in this document appear to be rock concerts or other extravaganza--type productions. In other words, the County created'an EIR and adopted findings (see previous section) to accommodate the needs of leased event promoters, i.e., rock producers and big money promoters, and not the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra or the Hollywood Bowl Symphony Orchestra. This further supports Petitioner's previous discussion demonstrating the lack of substantial evidence to support findings that shell preservation is infeasible.
Manifestly, the County failed to engage in good faith evaluation of alternatives and adopted a defective EIR and completely unsupported findings in order to provide the appearance of a justification for the original demolition plan which had been quietly formulated years earlier. As shall be demonstrated below, this plan was carefully concealed from the public until the last possible moment and was kept from Petitioners until after the EIR comment period was closed.
THE COUNTY VIOLATED CEQA BY FAILING TO INSURE IMPLEMENTATION OF ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES AND BY FAILING TO ADOPT MEANINGFUL MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONDING TO PROPERLY ASSESSED IMPACTS
The Findings for this project acknowledge that the community surrounding the Bowl w ill be subjected to significant
2 In yet another effort to create the misleading impression that the Maximum Shall Conservation Alternative is inferior to the project, the DEIR represents that the former does not achieve temperature control and does not include ventilation of the shell. ~2 AR 379). Actually, ventilation for the shell can be created by incorporating ventilation louvers with operable dampers. --(7 AR 1945). project--induced noise impacts from rock concerts at the new facility. (4 AR 1034--1035). The County plans a sound containment wall as a mitigation measure. (4 AR 1035--1036). However, the members of.the Board of Supervisors agreed that the project would go forward as to the shell even if there were no funds to pay for other aspects of the project. (1 AR 77, 83). Several supervisors voiced concerns about possible lack of funds to complete the entire project, including acoustics. (1 AR 6275). At this point, Supervisor Yaroslavsky stated:
There may be things that you could back out of this project, if they run our of money. I'm concerned that they could run out of money. You never know in this business. (par]. So there are things that are not essential. The fountains, for example, that may be deferred to some later date. Maybe the Philharmonic will raise the funds, privately. Maybe there will be some other park bond measure, who knows. (par]. But if they get into a pinch, the critical issue for us, is the stage itself, is the shell, itself. The other things that are part of this project, which are part of the overall costs could be deferred back out if we, if we ran into that problem. (1 AR 77).
Further discussion elicited an admission from a County official at the hearing that the final cost for even the shell itself was not yet known. (1 AR 55--56). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the project was adopted. (1 AR 85). The County violated CEQA by approving a project without assuring the existence of funding necessary to finance the implementation of mitigation measures that were part of the project as adopted. In Federation of Hillside & CaUons Associations, et al v. git
a of Los Angeles, 83 Cal. App. 4th 1252 (2000), the Court addressed the General Plan Framework adopted by the City of Los Angeles along with a mitigation program known as the Transportation Improvement Mitigation Plan (TIMP). (id., 1255). Petitioners in Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations contended that the city violated CEQA by failing to assure the TIMP's implementation. The Court of Appeal agreed, holding: The,city acknowledged in the TIMP that there was great uncertainty as to whether the mitigation measures would ever be funded or implemented. Although the city adopted the mitigation measures, did not require that they be implemented as a condition of the development allowed under the GPF and made no provision to ensure that they will actually be implemented or fully enforceable' ([Public Resources Code] section 21081.6, subd. (b)). We therefore conclude that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into' (section 21081, subd.(a)(1) the GPF in the manner contemplated by CEQA, and the city failed to provide that the mitigation measures would actually be implemented under the GPF (section 21081.6, subd(b)).11(Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations, supra, 83 Cal. App. 4th, 1261).
The Court of Appeal explained the reason CEQA requires \implementation of mitigation measures as follows: The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development, and not merely adoRted and then neglected or disregarded. (id, emphasis in original).
In the present,case, the County violated these principles by purporting to adopt sound mitigation measures without assuring their implementation. Instead of complying with CEQA, the County adopted this project with the understanding that absent available'funding, the mitigation measures would be indefinitely deferred. This is precisely the vice condemned in Federation of Hillside and Canyons Associations, supra.
In addition to the foregoing, the County adopted meaningless mitigation measures for the visual impacts of the project. The record does not demonstrate the feasibility of the sound well as a mitigation measure. The wall is to be constructed of--concrete masonry, (the same material as is used for sound walls on freeways), (1 AR 236), and there are no studies demonstrating that.this will not produce adverse impacts upon the quality of music at the Bowl by magnifying and distorting sound produced in the shell. In addition, the 14foot high wall as depicted in the EIR lacks enforcement, and its length is not described. (1 AR 235--238). Indeed, the sound wall is speculative in that it is described in the EIR as a possibility, (I AR 263), even though it constitutes an adopted----albeit potentially unfunded (supra)----mitigation measure.
Although the DEIR admits that light towers which will not exceed 84, in heightm will degrade the site and its surroundings at the front of the Bowl, (1 AR 265, see 267). the document unreasonably asserts that this impact would not visible at night (although the towers are light towers) and then speculates that the towers can be hidden by undefined appropriate vegetation covering the towers, which will be eights stories tall. This violates CEQA's requirement of feasible mitigation measures.
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners are entitled to a writ as requested.
THE COUNTY AND THE ASSOCIATION VIOLATED CEO--A BY PROVIDING A MISLEADING PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BY DENYING TIMELY NOTICE OF THE PROJECT TO PETITIONERS
The County has consistently concealed its plans to demolish the Hollywood Bowl Orchestra Shell and has shown its hand only at the last possible moment in the environmental process. As the DEIR stated.
In 1496, county voters approved $18,000,000 for the Hollywood Bowl to Rehabilitate facilities and aging, high maintenance infrastructure including improvements Notice of Public Availability of the Notice of Preparation of the EIR refers to shell rehabilitation and acoustical improvements without a word about demolition. (6 AR 1520). The Initial Study begins,by,describing the bond measure as designed for implementation of improvements. (6 AR 1530). The Initial Study contained a brief reference to the fact that the proposed project requires removal of the existing acoustical shell. (6 AR 1557). There is still no reference to demolition or destruction of the shell, much less an acknowledgement that the shell constitutes a historic resource.
The EIR itself minimizes the historic significance of the Hollywood Bowl by not discussing the first two of four criteria governing a location's eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. (7 AR 297--303). Attached to the accompanying Declaration of Robert Nudelman is a list of famous persons and events associated with the Bowl, which is pertinent to the non--discussed criteria. None of this information is reflected in the EIR.
Petitioners were not listed in the project mailing list. (2 AR 460--487). Nevertheless, Hollywood Heritage is an interested party, and its museum is located across the street from the Hollywood Bowl on Highland Avenue. (5 AR 1136). The County and the Association posted the Notice of Preparation of the EIR at the'Bowl museum and other locations. (6 AR 1509, 1521). A logical place for posting would have been the Hollywood Heritage Museum across the street. Instead of receiving notice, Mr. Nudelman was falsely told by a senior Bowl official in April or
May of 2000 that nothing was going on, (Exhibit 3, Nudelman Declaration), even though the DEIR for the project, which included demolition of an historic resource, is dated April 13, 2000. (1 AR 162). Hollywood Heritage received no notice of the project until four weeks before the hearing. (5 AR 1137).
An attorney working on this project on behalf of the county Association, a former member of Hollywood Heritage's Board of Directors, later attempted to convince Mr. Nudelman and Hollywood Heritage not to file suit. (Nudelman declaration). The County faced opposition to expansion of the stage of the Hollywood Bowl from residents in 1994, (li AR 2651--2688), and it is reasonable to infer that the foregoing events reflect an attempt to forestall such opposition for this project. Mr. Nudelman stated in his comment letter of September 11, 2000 that he was prepared to bring in experts to describe an alternative not addressed in the EIR and asked that the hearing be postponed. (5 AR 1136--1137). The request was ignored.
There are three legal consequences flowing from the foregoing. First, defective notice and inadequate project description constitutes an independent CEQA violation. (County of Invo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 189--192 [accurate project description is the sine qua non of an adequate EIR] (1977); Guidelines section 15200 [purpose of EIR review includes discovering public concerns)). Secondly, the failure to properly describe the project, notify interested parties and provide them with accurate information in response to their inquiries operates to suspend the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies. (McQueen v. Board of Directors, 202 Cal. App. 1136, 1150--1 ; misleading notice eliminates exhaustion requirement). Finally, the foregoing events reflect procedural unfairness justifying an expansion of the record to include the documents attached hereto. (Kostka & Zishke, Practice under the California Environmental Quality Act, section 23.55, pp~ 967--968, see Western States Petroleum Association v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. 4th 559, 575--576, fn. 5 (1995)).
Again, Petitioners are entitled to a writ. Petitioners also request that the administrative record by amended to include the attached documents.
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully requested that the court issue the writ as requested and grant relief described herein and as sought in the Petition and First Amende~ Petition.
I, Lawrence Teeter, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I am over the age of eighteen (18) and am not a party to the instant case. On January 3, 2001, 1 served the attached document by placing a copy thereof, enclosed in a separate sealed envelope, with the postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail, first class, In the County of Los Angeles, State of California, each of which envelopes was addressed as indicated further below, and that my business address is 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90010.
Helen S. Parker AND FAX (213) 617--71082
Principal Deputy County Counsel
648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 North Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Latham and Watkins
Damon P. Mamalakis,
633 w. 5th Street
Los Angeles,, CA 9007
AND BY FAX (213) 891--876
EXECUTED THIS 3rd day of January, 2001 in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
Article on Frank Gehry and the Bowl design
Additional addenda not ready to post on web site as of this date.