June 7, Mr. Brian. 150 North. Third Streett. Foote. On behalf. Master Plan Project. Disney Studios. I. Final EXHIBIT Q-1

Transcription

1 June 7, 2016 Submitted by Mr. Brian Foote City of Burbank Community Development Department 150 North Third Streett Burbank, CA Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, The Walt Disney Studios Master Plan Project Dear Mr. Foote, On behalf of the Los Angeles Conservancy, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)) for The Walt Disney Studios Master Plan Project. We understand that Disney Studios is seeking an eighteen-year extension of its Development Agreement, which previously went into effect inn Although the original environmental analysis included a historical assessment of the project site and identified a historic district eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, we are concerned that the Draft SEIR does not include an updated survey and impacts assessment. We believe that the site could contain additional historic resources that have gained significance since the original evaluation, and that new potential impacts should be studiedd accordingly. We do appreciate Disney Studios commitment to its rich collection of historic resources, as demonstrated throughh the original Master Plan efforts, and we hope to work with the applicant and current project team as the proposed extension moves forward. I. Final Supplemental EIR should containn a detailedd historic assessment of all on-site structures In 1992, LSA Associates prepared a Historical Assessment of the Walt Disney Studios Lot, which included the identification of a National Register eligible historic district. The potential district, composed of twenty contributing structures dating to , is significant for its associations with thee development of the animated film industry, the career of master architect Kem Weber, and as an excellent, intact example of a Streamline Moderne industrial complex. The existing EXHIBIT Q-1

2 Development Agreement allowed for the demolition of five contributing structures, two of which are still extant. While the Development Agreement planned for and mitigated impacts to the Kem Weber-designed campus, the Disney Studio Lot contains additional potential resources that were constructed subsequent to the period of significance. For example, the Michael D. Eisner Building (formerly the Team Disney Building) was designed by pioneering Postmodern architect Michael Graves and completed in The sandstone temple is a whimsical interpretation of the Parthenon, featuring nineteen-foot-tall terra cotta dwarfs from the 1937 film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Its exaggerated design represents a shift in the studio s public orientation. While studio lots throughout the region were typically shielded from public view, the Eisner Building is highly visible, though not accessible. The building will reach the conventional forty-five-year threshold for evaluation during the proposed extension of the Development Agreement, and its exceptional significance warrants further consideration at this time. The iconic Roy E. Disney Animation Building (1994), designed by Postmodern architect Robert A.M. Stern, should be similarly evaluated and treated as an historic resource. Because additional structures may have gained significance since the 1992 survey, the updated historic assessment should consider expanding the period of significance beyond 1949 in order to account for subsequent waves of development on the studio site, including the Postmodern era. Accordingly, the assessment should plan for and include properties that may become eligible during the eighteen year period of the proposed Master Plan. In addition to reevaluating the existing historic district, the Final SEIR should identify any buildings or structures that may be individually eligible for listing on the National Register, the California Register of Historical Resources, or as Burbank Historic Resources. II. Formally Integrate the City s Planning Division into the Master Plan Review Process We believe that there are strong, recent precedents for guiding the implementation of master plans with clear preservation components. It is basic safeguard we are pressing for within other long-term and studio master plans. The University of Southern California (USC) Development Plan and Specific Plan (ENV EIR) is an excellent model for a comprehensive, 20-year master plan that balances historic preservation with compatible infill construction. USC s Adaptive Mitigation Management Approach (AMMA) provides detailed procedures for project review that directs development to sites without historic resources while requiring additional environmental review when extensive alterations or demolition of a contributing element is proposed. With review and enforcement from the City s Planning Division, we believe that USC s methodical approach to managing a large collection of historic resources over the course of a 20-year master plan establishes a clear model for Walt Disney Studios to follow as a best practice (see attached Exhibit A). The Master Plan Project should include precise language that outlines the role of the City s Planning Division in reviewing future proposals for any rehabilitation projects and new construction that is adjacent to contributing structures. EXHIBIT Q-2

3 III. California Environmental Quality Act A key policy under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the lead agency s duty to take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with historic environmental qualities and preserve for future generations examples of major periods of California history. 1 To this end, CEQA requires public agencies to deny approval of a project with significant adverse effects when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures can substantially lessen such effects. 2 Courts often refer to the EIR as the heart of CEQA, providing decision makers with an in-depth review of projects with potentially significant environmental impacts and analyzing alternatives that would reduce or avoid those impacts. 3 CEQA Guidelines require a range of alternatives to be considered in the EIR, with an emphasis on options capable of substantially lessening the project s significant adverse environmental effects. According to the Draft SEIR, the proposed Development Agreement extension does not include changes to the planned demolition and construction of already approved Master Plan uses, nor would it create additional impacts or change the conclusions identified in the Master Plan EIR. Without an updated historic resources evaluation, however, the Conservancy is deeply concerned about potential direct and indirect impacts to historic structures that have not previously been identified. We disagree with the statements in Section of the Draft SEIR, specifically paragraphs 3a-3d, which argue that no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been know with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was prepared indicates that the project will have significant effects or that new alternatives and/or mitigations measures are necessary. Given the flexibility desired with the Master Plan, the Final SEIR should include revised conceptual site plans that clearly identify known historic resources and potential development locations in order to illustrate potential direct and indirect impacts. If significant impacts are anticipated after an updated assessment is prepared, the Final SEIR should also address a range of feasible preservation alternatives and appropriate mitigation measures. About the Los Angeles Conservancy: The Los Angeles Conservancy is the largest local historic preservation organization in the United States, with nearly 6,500 members throughout the Los Angeles area. Established in 1978, the Conservancy works to preserve and revitalize the significant architectural and cultural heritage of Los Angeles County through advocacy and education. 1 Public Resources Code (b), (c). 2 Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal. App.3d 30, 41; also see PRC 21002, County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4 th 1112, EXHIBIT Q-3

4 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Please feel free to contact me at (213) or should you have any questions. Sincerely, Adrian Scott Fine Director of Advocacy cc: Hollywood Heritage EXHIBIT Q-4

5 Exhibit A. University of Southern California University Park Campus Specific Plan Zones Section 11. Requirements for Historic Review A. General Requirements. The construction, alteration, addition, demolition, reconstruction, reuse, rehabilitation, relocation or removal of any building object within the Specific Plan area that is: Identified in the AMMA as an individual resource; or b. Is a contributor or non-contributor to the Potential Historic District shown on Figure 7; or c. Is a potential development site located within the Potential Historic District shown on Figure 7; shall conform to the requirements of Section 11 and the Adaptive Mitigation Measures (AMMA), attached as Appendix F. B. Minor Construction to Existing Building. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any minor change or alteration, including but not limited to routine maintenance, minor system upgrade, change to secondary spaces (e.q. restrooms or storage spaces), or change to spaces that as an existing condition contain no character-defining features to properties that are Potential Historic District contributors, individually significant resources, or both, the applicant shall produce the following in consultation with the Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources (OHR): 1. A memorandum from a qualified professional, reviewed and approved by OHR confirming that no character-defining features will be permanently removed, altered or changed; and 2. A plan from a qualified professional, approved by OHR for the removal, storage, and reinstallation of such feature(s) if any character-defining features are proposed for temporary removal. The requirements of this Section shall not apply to minor alterations or changes to Potential Historic District non-contributors. Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings per the-secretary of the Interior's Standards. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the rehabilitation of any existing building that is a Potential Historic District Contributor, noncontributory to the Potential Historic District, or individually significant resource (which does not qualify for a building permit under Section 11 (B) above), the applicant shall produce the following in consultation with OHR: 1. A report from a qualified historic preservation professional reviewed and approved by OHR, demonstrating that the rehabilitation: ii. Complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation ("Standards");and iii. Will not affect the eligibility of the Potential Historic District; and EXHIBIT Q-5

6 iv. Adheres to the Design Guidelines for New Construction in the AMMA ("Design Guidelines"); and 2, If the rehabilitation requires the temporary removal of character defining features, a plan for the removal, storage, and reinstallation of such feature(s). E. Extensive Alteration or Demolition of Existing Building. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the extensive alteration (such that the Historic Resource will no longer convey its historic significance) of any building that is a Potential Historic District Contributor, non-contributor, or individually significant resource, CEOA review shall be required, and the applicant shall submit to the Department of Building and Safety a report from a qualified historic preservation professional, which has been reviewed by the OHR, demonstrating that the alteration will not affect the eligibility of the Potential Historic District and adheres to the historic guidelines. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the demolition of any building that is a Potential Historic District contributor or non-contributor to the Potential Historic District, or individually significant resource, CEQA review shall be required, and the applicant shall produce a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified historic preservation professional, which has been reviewed and approved by OHR, for the protection of the Potential Historic District during demolition and, new construction. F. New Construction, Infill or Replacement of an Existing Building. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall obtain a clearance from OHR certifying that the new construction: 1. Complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for infill compatibility; and 2. Adheres to the Design Guidelines or New Construction in the AMMA ("Design Guidelines"). EXHIBIT Q-6