Los Angeles Central Area Planning
Commission
Department of City Planning
Los Angeles City Hall
200 N. Spring Street February
23, 2004
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: Response to Appeal
of Case No. ZA 2003-3183(ZV)(SPR)
6931-6931 Hollywood Boulevard
I am writing to you on behalf of
Hollywood Heritage to express our continuing opposition to the proposed project
(project) at the (currently vacant) lot at the northeast corner of Hollywood
Boulevard and Orange Avenue (6931-35 Hollywood Boulevard). Whereas we are not
in opposition to the square footage of the project or the idea of a project
there in general, we do not approve of the proposed building design and the
other issues listed below. This letter is to serve as a reaffirmation of our
opposition in both written documents and at project hearings, upon the
building’s original presentation almost five years ago.
Specific concerns include:
1. The design of the structure
2. The continuing development of new “modern
structures” within the National Register Historic District with no local
guidelines for design or traffic and parking in place as was required by law to
be implemented by May 8, 1988
3. The large off-site signage on the
structure (on site signage has not been described as yet).
4. The proposed issuance of liquor licenses
for unknown tenants
5. The proposed issuance of permits for
“games of chance or skill”
6. The proposed permits for the sale of
second hand (used) clothing without knowing who the tenant will be
The first issue over design concerns the
three-story modern glass distressed box appearance of the project. Though being
heralded by some as “great modern architecture,” it has no relationship,
architecturally, to any of the over 90 structures contributing to the Hollywood
Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment National Register Historic District
(Historic District). It is an “in your face” design that creates a jarring
break in the architecture of the Historic District, especially in relation to
the adjacent Grauman’s Chinese Theater (1927), Don Lee Cadillac Building (1929),
and Roosevelt Hotel (1927) (across Orange Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard
respectively from the project). It appears as if a giant parasite had landed in
the center of these landmarks, intent on sucking away the integrity of the
Historic District.
It may or may not be fine modern
architecture, but it is neither appropriate, nor legal here. Its contextual
relationship to its neighbors is without sensitivity or merit. Federal
guidelines allow for differentiation in appearance from historic buildings but
there must be “compatibility in size, scale, design, materials, color, and
texture.” The project only possibly meets the requirement of scale, though the
large billboards and video boards on the front will visually alter that scale.
Its size, and potentially scale, is too tall for the Chinese Theater as the
project rises to a height of 114 feet. This needs to be reduced so that it does
not, in any part, dominate over the historic theater as was allowed to occur,
without approval, on the eastern side of the theater. As far as “design,
material, color, and texture,” there is no other structure in the District that
even faintly resembles these criteria.
The CRA’s Urban Design Guidelines for The
Hollywood Boulevard Historic District were to have been in effect by May 8,
1988 (according to the FEIR for the Hollywood Redevelopment Project), but have
yet to be finalized (draft versions existing today are 11 years old and
outdated), though the approval of the Hollywood Redevelopment Project and the
resulting SHOT lawsuit against the city were based on such a timeframe for
approval (along with three other plans in similar or worse limbo). Therefore
any development within the areas to be impacted by these plans is potentially
illegal as it is in violation of the 1986 FEIR and the evidence given to, and
cited by, the court in the SHOT lawsuit.
The Federal standards for design, even in
their most simplistic reading, negate the approval of this project’s design.
The lack of binding local guidelines strongly questions the city’s overall
ability to approve the project, never mind an attempt to supercede Federal
laws.
As the project seems to be going by the
proposals made for it over four years ago, new evidence now exists that would
trigger the reopening of the CEQA process, for which the project was originally
given a mitigated negative declaration. Highly questionable at the time, one
must now add the contribution of the new Hollywood and Highland project (HHP)
immediately adjacent to the eastern side of Grauman’s Chinese Theater.
Covering over 8 acres with 1,000,000
square feet of new construction with a street façade over three times the
length of the Chinese Theater, the cumulative impact of this proposed project
and the HHP must now be reviewed under CEQA as stated under CEQA Guidelines
§15130(a). “Cumulative Impacts” are defined under CEQA as “two or more
individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which
compound or increase other environmental impacts,” Cal. Pub. Res. Code
§21083(b).
What is most appropriate here is to use
the legal arguments prepared by the developer’s own attorneys, Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter, and Hampton, LLP (SMRH). These positions were stated in their
written response in opposition to the approval of the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Hollywood and Highland Project
(SCH#09709/061), March 1998. These are the same attorneys that have prepared
the arguments for the proposed project here, yet when one reads their
statements and demands from 1998 against the Hollywood and Highland Project,
they are just as accurate against their own project today. Ever more so when
the issue of cumulative impacts are taken into consideration as they attacked
the impacts of only HHP and did not consider the cumulative impact of that project
and the one they propose today. It should be remembered that these two
projects are only separated by the Chinese Theater, and that proximity would
make impacts similar for the SMRH written comments in 1998 when compared to the
location of the proposed project today. (References below are made from the
SMRH letter of February 18, 1998 pages 22-37, sections refer to identification
by the FEIR.)
SMRH made other arguments concerning
light and glare that are similar to ours for their project (pages 16, 17, 35,
36). These frequently concern lack of information on which to make an informed
decision. As outlined later in this letter, there is a similar lack of
information in their project proposal.
The legal significance of the SMRH letter
concerning Urban Design / Aesthetics when applied to the proposed project
cannot be overstated (page 34-35 section 27). A copy of these pages is included
herein. What they strongly demonstrate is that the cumulative impacts of the
HHP and the proposed project were not evaluated during its CEQA process as
required by law.
The reasons are obvious. The HHP was
under construction and its actual visual impacts could not have been
evaluated. Moreover, the HHP’s realized appearance is quite different from the
one proposed ruing the CEQA review of the proposed project over six years ago.
Secondly, the cumulative impacts of just the HHP are already significant
according to SMRH:
“Contrary to the conclusory analysis in
the DEIR, it would appear that significant cumulative urban design / aesthetics
impacts are quite likely to occur, given that the Agency (CRA) and City have
never adopted comprehensive design guidelines for the Hollywood District.”
–page 35, section 27.
The impacts have thus occurred, and the
CRA and the City have still not adopted the aforementioned plans, as is also
described in this letter. Therefore no evaluation could have been made
of the proposed project for its cumulative impacts. As the attorneys state, the
HHP never had such evaluation, and the lack of “comprehensive guidelines” in
1998 is just as relevant today for the proposed project.
Based on the facts and the arguments made
by the developer’s own attorneys, there is absolutely no legal manner in
which CEQA has been met for the proposed project concerning Urban Design /
Aesthetics. Therefore it is mandatory that CEQA be reopened for the proposed
project to determine the cumulative impacts of both it and the HPP, as well as
other incremental impacts that have occurred over the past six years.
The importance of lesser incremental
impacts over time is highlighted in the SMRH letter, page 34, section 27:
“The evaluation of cumulative impacts
plays a crucial role on the CEQA process because environmental change often
occurs incrementally with no one project appearing to cause significant adverse
effects, but ‘which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.’ Bozung,
v. Local Agency Formation Com. 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283-84 (1975).” – page 35,
section 27.
A similar case in San Francisco is also
cited to backup the legal case law for this position. With these arguments
concerning “no one project appearing to cause significant effects,” the HHP and
the proposed project are each well above that threshold and easily trigger the
above legal citations. To not reopen CEQA and review the proposed project, with
all of the related cumulative impacts on the Hollywood Historic District,
is obviously an argument with no legal standing. On the contrary, the SMRH
letter proves CEQA must be reopened.
The issue of height is made on page 24,
section 15, where it states “The DEIR claims that the Chinese Theater will not
be significantly impacted because development adjacent to the façade of the
Chinese Theater will not exceed 40 feet in height. However, there is no
restriction on the height of adjacent development behind the façade.”
(emphasis added). This is exactly what we previously mentioned, whereas the
front of the proposed project is supposed to be similar in height to the
Chinese Theater, but the rear section rises to 114 feet, towering above the
façade. This was cited as an issue by SMHR with the HHP “Urban
Design/Aesthetics,” and we add it here to this project as it is a known
impact, while SMRH were, admittedly, only guessing with Hollywood and Highland.
Off-Site Signage
The proposed off-site signage on the
structure would include a 527 square foot billboard and a 1,699 square foot
billboard attached to the structure’s surface. These would be “perforated vinyl
wall murals.” The developer somehow thinks variances should be allowed for these
as they would meet the proposed Hollywood signage guidelines (proposed
only in purpose, not yet in specifics). Obviously no proof can be given for
this unless the developer purports to have psychic abilities (this would have
to be substantiated). Therefore, the zoning administrator has denied these
variances and Hollywood Heritage strongly supports that. To do otherwise would
open the city to claims of having to allow any and all illegal signage as every
owner would demand his rights of “special circumstances,” as this one has. It
should also be noted that covering windows with “vinyl wall murals” is hardly
integrating the sign with the architecture and in no way could be considered to
promote signage as a positive “distinctive aesthetic” for Hollywood Boulevard
as the developer claims the new signage guidelines will establish.
The project also proposes to have an “800
square foot electronic video board on the west side of the forecourt plaza.”
Though this would be denied in the above reference, there is no information in
any previous documents about the impacts of this sign. These are of potential
significance: 1) Visual / Aesthetics in relation to the historic Chinese
Theater; 2) Glare as the amount of illumination impacts the area and also to
traffic; 3) Traffic as the glare and the messages are viewed by drivers on
Hollywood Boulevard. Similar concerns concern lighting for all site signs
reflecting off the glass walls and causing additional glare. These need further
evaluation taking into account the cumulative impacts with other area lighting
(SMRH letter page 26, section 17) if any such sign is again proposed here.
Issuance of Liquor Licenses, Dance Hall
Permit, and Hours of Operation As Variances and Not As Conditional Use Permits
(CUP).
This is being allowed with minor
restriction by the zoning administrator, without an understanding of what is
actually being proposed. By allowing such blind permits, the developer can rent
out their “rooftop event space” to whomever they choose for parties and events
until at least 2:00 am, seven nights a week, 365 days a year. The approval of
the event space as proposed here would allow for large scale, uncontrolled
parties.
Several clubs operate this way in
Hollywood now as promoters rent out the club for “private parties” where an
admission is charged (sometimes disguised as a “membership fee”). If there are
problems, the promoter is blamed by the owner, who then claims ignorance of the
situation, but states, of course, it will not happen again. All blame is reduced
to finger pointing and the controls of a CUP and the responsibility of an
owner/operator are gone.
This is especially important here as the
developer insists that this party space should be approved as it is similar to
the previously approved restaurant. There is no comparison. The restaurant was
only 3,441 square feet, not 6,971, as is the party space, more than twice the
size of the previously approved restaurant. Additionally, the restaurant would
principally serve food, along with alcohol. The party space is only required to
serve food—no definition as to what kind (pickles, peanuts, pretzels?), nor are
there any requirements of sales totals—i.e. half food, half alcohol—only that
food only be available. Not at all like a restaurant CUP, which would be far
more restrictive, limiting alcohol sales to food as per an established and
verifiable ratio.
Finally, as this will be a drinking and
dancing operation, not a sit down restaurant, the number of people attending
will be considerably greater yet no additional parking is being required. No
occupancy for the party space is even provided by the developer, which would be
required for a CUP.
Without a CUP there is no control over
these conditions, attendance to parking ratio, and amount of alcohol to food
sales ratio. There is also no direct responsibility to the possessor of the
variance (the developer) since they will not be the operator. Suffice to say
that hundreds of people would attend these events in such a large space and no
controls are being established. There is also no discussion of any experience
that the developer has in operating such a facility of this size. This is not
at all what is stated in the December 5, 2003 zoning administrator letter. Page
14 states the roof terrace will be used for “public and private receptions,
small parties, and similar functions, including dancing.” Yet there is nothing
in the variance’s approval that would mandate, or clarify, these as the only
uses for this location. It also strains credibility to believe that 7,000 square
feet will be used for “small parties,” and not large ones.
As for the zoning administrator’s report
saying that this cannot be a nightclub, that is merely an issue of semantics.
What else will be going on here? Waltz or square dance parties? The restriction
on amplified sound after midnight will be interesting if the party space is
allowed to stay open and serve alcohol until 2:00 am. Will these hours be
featuring a string quartet or hip-hop unplugged? This will be impossible to
enforce, as the LAPD does not deal with noise abatement. It would take months,
or even years, to revoke this variance. Once again, the holder of the variance
would be able to claim that they did not make the noise after midnight.
Plus the noise of several hundred people, having had a few drinks, leaving the
facility by foot or car at 2:00 am into the surrounding residential (apartments
and hotels) neighborhood is not discussed as an impact, nor are there any
mitigations proposed.
Page 17 of the zoning administrator’s
report admits that “the data indicates that the crime rate in the are is high
compared to the citywide average,” 645 reported crimes compared to a citywide
average of 197, or high crime district average of 356 in 2002. He also states,
“the figures indicate that there is an over-concentration of on-site licenses
in the area” (five times the number of liquor licenses allowed for this area).
Somehow this is dismissed by stating “this is one of the primary tourist areas
in the world.” Yes, that is true, but is this implying that tourists come here
specifically to drink and be a victim of crime, or be perpetrators of crime?
Tourists try to avoid high crime areas. While statistics would make this
area seem quite dangerous, there is, as stated, no shortage of places to get alcohol
in the area. Perhaps the developer and the city should look at placing
something non-alcoholic here or at least maintain some control over it with a
CUP. The statistics here strongly refute any claim that these variances are
“for the public good or necessity.”
Games of Chance or Skill, and Used
Clothing Sales.
The zoning administrator has set
restrictions on these variances to better define them so that they are
acceptable with one question, the proximity of the site to a school. Hollywood
High School’s location, in this case, needs to be reviewed for LAUSD compliance
concerning its proximity to “games of chance or skill.” In the past, a video
arcade was disallowed for the building on the northwest corner of Orange Drive
and Hollywood Boulevard for this very reason. Would this variance thereby
conflict with the school zoning regulations? If so, what limitations—hours,
availability, security—need to be addressed or is the variance even allowed?
Conclusions
Based on the previously provided
information, the zoning administrator’s letter of December 5, 2003, the Draft
Hollywood Boulevard Urban Design Guidelines, the proposed Hollywood sign
ordinance, the 1986 Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and subsequent legal actions
concerning it, experience as a resident of the area for over 26 years, and the
developer’s attorney’s own written comments for the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the Hollywood and Highland Project—March 1998, this project cannot
be legally allowed to go forward as proposed, and a new CEQA review needs to be
required for whatever is decided here.
The issuance of “blind permits” instead
of Conditional Use Permits eliminates effective enforcement of conditions
imposed to obtain these variances. It is highly suspect that there would be any
benefits to the community (no evidence of benefits is ever presented by anyone)
from a 7,000 square foot party space, thereby justifying a CUP, never mind
variances. Why not a rooftop restaurant with limited banquet facilities for the
“receptions and small parties” that the developer suggests is needed?
The signage is outside the regulations
proposed for the new ordinance and must be treated as such until the ordinance
is in place, respecting the existing billboard moratorium. At the time that an
ordinance is approved, the developer can propose his demands based on the
actual, not imagined, guidelines.
Related arguments concerning traffic
(video signage, undetermined number of patrons at the party center) and glare
(building made of solid glass walls, and video billboard) need to be resolved
when adequate information is provided (glass is also an aesthetic issue).
The overwhelming concern of the wholly
inappropriate design of the structure and its contextual relationships to Los
Angeles and National landmark structures and the Historic District is the most
condemning of all these negative impacts. The developer obviously understands
this, as his attorneys made such arguments against the Hollywood and Highland
Project in 1998, located just a few feet from this proposed project. Their own
statements are more than the legal evidence needed to deny the approval of the
proposed project’s design. When added to the additional facts stated here,
there is no legal standing for the approval of this project as proposed.
The developer must go back and redesign /
rethink the project so that it generates benefits and profit to them and
the community, not the distain and controversy that this would. The city needs
to approve a project worthy of this most important location, next to one of the
most famous and treasured buildings in the world, in one of the most widely
known historic districts in the world. The previously approved Hollywood Galaxy
and Hollywood and Highland projects were heralded for their modern architecture
at the time of their approvals only to be thought of otherwise when completed.
Please do not provide the approval for this “third strike” and force legal
action to protect the law, our history, our tourism industry, and common sense.
Sincerely,
[Signature]
Robert W. Nudelman
Director of Preservation Issues