August 28, 2000
Ms. Pauline Lewicki
Senior Planner
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles
354 South Spring Street
Suite 700
Los Angeles, California 90013
Re: Proposed Hollywood Orange Building
Hollywood Heritage, Inc. (HHI) strongly opposes the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Subsequent Negative Declaration (SND) for the Hollywood Orange Building (HOB) at 6931-6935 Hollywood Boulevard, as issued by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA), July 31, 2000, File Code HW6990.
This opposition is based on several significant issues:
These issues are more than sufficient for rejection of the SND and the subsequent requirement under CEQA for a full EIR for the proposed HOB project. It should be noted that the CRA had previously adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for a completely different project at this site. The differences between the two projects are so extreme, that they nullify the legal standing of the MND when referenced to the new HOB project.
All references below are based on the SND; page numbers refer to those of that document.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
b. The SND claims that the HOB, or Modified Project, meets the requirements of the 1986 Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. One section of the Plan is referred to, Section 506.2.1, concerning "The Hollywood Boulevard District", which includes the Historic District.
The area of contention here is the MND's claim that the Modified Project somehow meets Objective of the District number 2: "Assure that new development is sympathetic to and complements the existing scale of development."
The SND itself disproves that this condition is met with the Modified Project. On page AA2 of the 'Hollywood Spectacular Environmental Initial Study" (EIS)1 which is the basis for the MND and the SND, it states that: "The Hollywood Spectacular incorporates a number of characteristics from architectural styles of the Historic District such as Art Deco1 International Style, Modeme and Themed or Fantasy architecture."
This design program is directly contradicted in the SND and, therefore, is in opposition to a key argument that was used to approve the MND. Such references in the SND include: "The Hollywood Orange Building is a contemporary building that does not imitate any of the numerous styles used in the designs of the Historic District's earlier buildings" (pg. 49); "The architectural style of the Hollywood Orange Building is distinctly contemporary..." (pg. 44); "The Building is contemporary in design ..." (pg. 37); "It does not imitate any style or building on Hollywood Boulevard ..." (pg. 20).
These quotes dramatically illustrate a completely different approach to the design of the project. The SND cannot use the reference of the first (EISIMND) to justify the second (SN D) as they are opposite in meaning and intent.
The EIS also refers to the requirement of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan (HRP) for "The development of Design Guidelines for new construction within the Hollywood Boulevard District" (which includes this site) (pg. A-25). This refers to Section 506.2.1 of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. Such guidelines were adopted in 1992 by the CRA Board of Commissioners and were to be used by all applicable projects requiring CRA discretionary approval, as this project does (pg. 65-66).
The EIS states that the Design Guidelines were not adopted (pg. A-25) which is partially true as the City Council has not yet voted on them, thereby limiting their effectiveness to only those projects previously described.
The HRP stated that these guidelines "shall be developed by the Agency within two (2) years of adoption of the Plan", and "All new development in the District shall meet the design guidelines to ensure that the objectives of the District are achieved" (Section 506.2.1, pg. 33, HRP).
This would then indicate that the Modified Project is in violation of the HRP. Neither the EIS nor the SND refer to the Design Guidelines (including a billboard ban) as approved in 1992. If these documents maintain that no such guidelines exist, then the CRA is in violation of the HRP by not preparing such documents as required under law, and therefore, this prn3ect could not be approved as "All new development ... shall meet the design guidelines". Furthermore, it would be impossible for the SND to claim that the "objectives" of the HRP are met, as they cannot be met without the design guidelines.
The SND must be rejected as either the design guidelines do not exist, as the EIS and the SND indicates, or if they do exist, they were not referenced in the EIS nor SND, and, therefore, cannot be presumed to have been met. Whichever response is chosen, the modified project is in non-compliance with the HRP.
It should be also noted that in the Save Hollywood Our Town (SHOT) lawsuit filed against the CRA and city over the adequacy of the HRP in 1986, a key concern was the protection of historic resources within the project area. The Court, in finding against SHOT, cited the development of Design Guidelines as referred to in Section 506.2.1 as a significant protective measure for the Historic District. To have failed to comply with this matter, as the SND implies, would bring into question the implementation of the Court's findings as required by the CRA and the city.
It should be further noted that no Design for Development has been prepared by the CRA for this HOB, as should have been done under Section 503 of the HRP (pg. 24-25). This would have included "development standards for design criteria including architectural style", "signs and billboards", and "other development design".
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
b. The SND claims "Less than Significant Impact" (pg. 91) for the HOB based on the "project’s incremental impact" (pg. 92). It claims that an EIR focuses on "projects under review" rather than "past, present or future" (pg. 92).
This, though, must be taken in context with previously approved projects by the CRA. The Hollywood Galaxy DEIR, SCH #86120313, refers to that project as having the following impact: "The architectural design of the proposed project does not reflect an architectural theme of the I 920s and 1 930s which is characterized by the Hollywood District. As such, the proposed project would result in an incremental effect on the character of the district" (pg. V-I 50).
The concerns described above of design and architectural style, as also previously mentioned for the HOB, would be the same as described here for a "contemporary building" as the HOB claims to be. The admitted incremental impact of the Hollywood Galaxy must be included with the similar negative impact from the design of HOB. It cannot be referenced in 1987, then forgotten in 2000; the impact did not go away.
Also, the TrizecHahn project being constructed on the immediate eastside of the Chinese Theater continues to isolate the theater. Plans by the CIM Group for the Don Lee Cadillac Building, across Orange Drive from the HOB, would include significant modification of this 1929 landmark that would potentially endanger its landmark status within the Historic District. With the Security Trust Building at Sycamore Avenue demolished, leaving only a facade on two sides, the northwest section of Historic District has faced a tremendous amount of cumulative negative impact since 1986. Only the Chinese Theater remains unchallenged along a three-block stretch.
The significant negative impact level created by the above cumulative impacts since the Historic District was approved in 1985, give legal proof of the need for an EIR to lessen the impact of any project that is not in compliance with the HRP's Design Guidelines, as the previous section herein stated illustrates.
These concerns come under the heading of "Cultural Resources", but the same concerns exist for "Aesthetics,"’ especially with signage, as the SND mentions (pg. 92). Other offsite signs have been proposed in addition to the 10 already under permit application (including another large video screen directly across the street at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel).
Signage guidelines are being prepared for the Historic District to, hopefully alleviate cumulative impacts from new and existing signage. Until such guidelines are in place, any new signage should not be allowed if variances from current codes are required, as is the case here. There is no way, with the issuance of so many applications, variances and a new set of guidelines being prepared, that any further approvals as described in the SND would not result in severe negative cumulative impacts to the Historic District. This is especially true, as is suggested in the MND, if each sign is approved on its own and not in relationship to all others (i.e., the definition of what causes cumulative impact).
I. AESTHETICS
c. Signage.
No offsite signage should be approved for the HOB until the new signage ordinance is prepared for the Historic District. This has been an ongoing project for several years, so much so that over one year ago the Los Angeles Building and Safety Commission approved a moratorium on new billboards/offsite signage. Though put forth by City Councilmember Goldberg, the City Council has yet to finalize the moratorium.
When approved, the moratorium would include this project. In support of the Councilperson's year-old efforts, the developer should not be allowed offsite signage variances until the new code is in effect, purportedly within the next few months1 thereby not impacting the implementation of this project. Depending on the new codes, the proposed signage may not be in compliance.
Whereas the SND makes note of the reduction of offsite signage from previous proposals by the developers, it fails to note that this could easily be changed back to the original plans. The architectural element used to contain the signage that has been "removed" is the interior space of the glass facade. This facade will not change in the SND, and signage could be added at any future date without change or modification to the HOB.
In other words, this may be nothing less than a stall tactic to win approval now. Later, as the HOB nears completion, a variance is then applied for to reinstate the original offsite signage plan (also known as bait-and-switch). This conclusion comes from the SND's acknowledgment of the developer's request for a variance to avoid requiring a CUP for the proposed signage (pg. 10). This would create a precedent so that later on another simple variance would be applied for and approved to post additional offsite signage without a CUP, which would have required public comment.
So as to keep the project at its proposed signage request and nothing more (at least without public scrutiny), the lesser signage request should be covenanted as part of the project's approval as a limit to prevent future increases in building signage, whether offsite or onsite.
C. ARCHITECTURAL APPROACH, COMPATIBILITY
The thrust of the SND is that a modern glass box somehow fits in with and is compatible to the Chinese Theater in specific and the Historic District in general. Whereas the architecture of the Historic District represents a number of historic, fantasy or themed design styles, the HOB is specifically designed to resemble none of the existing buildings in the Historic District (see pg. 2 of this report). And it is successful in not resembling any buildings in the Historic District.
For this reason, its very attempt to be different or break the mold, the HOB is not compatible but rather a deliberate attempt to scream for attention and set a precedent for modern architecture to infill the Historic District. It is, as has been demonstrated in this report, a negative impact by definition of previously approved documents would open the door, because of this precedent, to the further degradation of the Historic District.
To further prove this negative effect on the Historic District, Federal regulations define an adverse impact as "destruction or alteration of the properties' surrounding environments; introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or alter its settings" (Code 36, Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 799).
A reflective glass box with a 20X40 video screen and offsite advertising signage is completely out of character with a 1927 theater modeled after the mid-nineteenth century Chinese Chippendale style with extensive architectural detailing. Boldly admitting in the SND of the HO B's modem design being unlike any other in the Historic District and then arguing that the HOB is somehow back in character with the Historic District is sheer hucksterism. It does not in any way meet the requirements of CEQA nor the Federal government for having no adverse impact.
The reports by Bayard and Grimes included in the SND are so broad in their interpretation of the Historic District and infill architecture that anything could be approved. As such, they are baseless for legal purposes under CEQA and serve only as promotional pieces for the HOB. Also, the Bayard report confuses the Secretary of The Interior's Standard for Rehabilitation with new construction (pg. 49). Those standard quoted are for Rehabilitation of an existing historic structure, specifically for non-historic additions, not construction of a new building. No such Federal guidelines exist for construction of a new building within an historic district (pg. A-25) and the Bayard Report's use of this as a key argument negates the report's effectiveness.
Respectfully,
Robert W. Nudelman, President
Hollywood Heritage, Inc.
Responses to this document should be sent to: preservation@hollywoodheritage.org.