SOLA Village Historic Resources Technical Report. July 15, 2014 HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP

Transcription

1 July 15, 2014

2 PREPARED FOR PHR LA Mart LLC 1933 South Broadway Suite 409 Los Angeles, CA 90007

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Project Description Project Location Project Overview Context and Development History Southeast Los Angeles Furniture Industry in Los Angeles Site History Regulatory Review Historic Resources under CEQA Historic Designations Identification of Potential Historic Resources Project Site Evaluation Previously Identified Historic Resources in the Project Vicinity Potential Historic Resources in the Project Vicinity Summary of Historic Resources Potential Historical Impacts Framework for Analysis Analysis of Potential Impacts to Historical Resources Summary of Potential Impacts to Historical Resources 38 Bibliography

4 Appendices 40 Appendix A: Alteration History 42 Appendix B: Existing Condition Photographs: Project Site 46 Appendix C: Context Photographs: Project Vicinity Context Views 50 Appendix D: Existing Condition Photographs: Discretionary Resources in the Project Vicinity 52 Appendix E: Existing Condition Photographs: Properties in the Project Vicinity Determined Not Eligible as Historic Resources

5 1.0 INTRODUCTION PHR LA MART LLC (the Applicant ) is proposing a mixed-use project at 1900 South Broadway, in the City of Los Angeles (the Project ). The purpose of this technical report is to determine if any historical resources, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 1 are present on, or adjacent to, the Project Site (as defined below) and, if so, to identify potential impacts to those historical resources caused by the proposed Project (as defined below). Under CEQA, the potential impacts of a project on historical resources must be considered. CEQA states that: A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. 2 Thus, an evaluation of impacts to historic resources under CEQA requires a two-part inquiry: (1) a determination of whether the project site contains or is adjacent to any historical resource or resources, and if so, (2) a determination of whether the proposed project will result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource or resources. This report investigates the project vicinity to determine if any historical resources are present and whether the development of the Project would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of such resources. This report contains: A review of the existing REEF (formerly the L.A. Mart) building located on a portion of the Project Site. A review of potential historic resources located in the Project vicinity. A review of previous evaluations through historic resource surveys, environmental review, or other official actions. Analysis and evaluation of any potential historical resources. Analysis of potential impacts to historical resources under CEQA. This report was prepared using primary and secondary sources related to the development history of the LA Mart and South Los Angeles. The following documents were consulted: Historic permits for properties on and surrounding the Project Site; Sanborn Fire Insurance maps; Historic photographs, aerial photos, and site plans; 5 1 California PRC, Section Ibid.

6 Local histories; Findings and survey report from SurveyLA, the City of Los Angeles s citywide survey, for the South Los Angeles Community Plan Area; California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) for Los Angeles County (2011); and City of Los Angeles Zoning and Map Access System (ZIMAS). 6 Research, field inspection, and analysis were performed by Christine Lazzaretto, Principal and Senior Architectural Historian; John LoCascio, Senior Architect; and Robby Aranguren, Planning Associate. All three are qualified professionals who meet the Secretary of the Interior s Professional Qualification Standards in Architectural History, Architecture, and History, respectively.

7 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location PHR LA MART LLC (the Applicant ) proposes to renovate, construct, use, and maintain a mixed-use project at 1900 South Broadway, in the City of Los Angeles (the Property ). 4 The approximately 9.7-acre Property consists of two city blocks, bounded by Washington Boulevard to the north, 21 st Street to the south, Hill Street to the west, and Main Street to the east (the Project Site ). The Project Site is bifurcated by Broadway. The approximately 4.9-acre westernmost lot is currently developed with the approximately 861,162 square-foot, 12-story REEF building (formerly the L.A. Mart) and approximately 401 surface parking spaces (the West Lot ). The surface parking lot includes a 40-foot chair installed in The approximately 4.7-acre easternmost lot is currently developed with an approximately 11,150 square feet warehouse/distribution building and approximately 700 surface parking spaces (the East Lot ). The West Lot and the East Lot are separated by Broadway. The Project Site is located in the South Los Angeles Community Plan Area (the Community Plan Area ) of the City of Los Angeles. The Community Plan Area is located approximately 2 miles southeast of Downtown Los Angeles and contains approximately 9,884 acres or approximately 14.8 square miles of land area. It is bounded on the north by the Santa Monica Freeway, on the east by Figueroa Street and Broadway. The Century Freeway and 120 th Street form the southern boundary and the Alameda Corridor forms the boundary of the Community on the west. The land uses within the general vicinity of the Project Site are characterized by a mix of low- to high-intensity commercial, institutional, and residential uses, which vary widely in building style and period of construction. The Project Site is shown in Figure 1. The Project is shown in Figure Project Overview The mixed-use project would include approximately: (i) 549 residential apartment units, including 21 live/work units, in eleven low- and mid-rise buildings; (ii) 895 residential condominium units in two high-rise buildings; (iii) 90,000 square feet of retail uses, including a 30,000 square foot grocery store; (iv) 46,000 square feet of restaurant/bar square footage; (v) a 208-key hotel; (vi) a 18, Description of the proposed Project as provided by the Applicant. 4 The Property includes the following Assessor Parcel Numbers: , , , , , and

8 square-foot gallery; and (vii) an 8,000 square foot fitness/yoga studio (the Project ). The Project would also include approximately 2,733 parking spaces. The Project would provide a vertically integrated mix of uses to assist in promoting the area as a center of population, employment, retail services, and entertainment. The existing 861,162 square-foot REEF building would expand by approximately 8,000 square feet, and new construction would include approximately 1,664,000 square feet of floor area contained within a number of multiple story towers, including a 35-story residential tower, a 32-story residential tower, and a 19-story hotel tower, and multiple low- and mid-rise residential buildings. The Project s total square footage would be approximately 2,533,000 square feet of floor area. The Project s floor area ratio ( FAR ) would be at or below 6.0:1, which is the existing permitted FAR at the Property. The 528 residential apartment units would occupy approximately 452,000 square feet of floor area, the 895 residential for sale units would occupy approximately 928,000 square feet of floor area, and the 21 live/work units would occupy approximately 17,000 square feet of floor area. The 208-unit hotel would occupy approximately 154,000 square feet of floor area. Retail, restaurant, and bar uses would occupy approximately 136,000 square feet of floor area, including an approximately 30,000 square foot grocery store. The Project would also include an approximately 18,000 square-foot public gallery and an 8,000 square foot fitness and yoga studio. The Project would include up to a fourlevel subterranean parking structure with at least 1,358 parking spaces on the East Lot and an eight-level abovegrade parking structure with at least 1,375 parking spaces on the West Lot. The parking structure would be physically integrated within the Project and would generally be surrounded by residential and commercial uses along Broadway and Hill Street. The Project would provide at least 2,733 parking spaces. Vehicular access to the parking structure on the East Lot would be provided from Main Street and vehicular access to the parking structure on the West Lot would be provided from Broadway, 21st Street, and Hill Street. The Project proposes new signage for the existing REEF building, the north and south residential towers, and the hotel building. The proposed signage includes next-generation, elegantly integrated digital lighting around (i) three sides of the existing REEF building, (ii) the north face of a proposed north residential tower, (iii) on all four sides of the proposed south residential tower, and (iv) on all four sides of the proposed hotel building. 8

9 All signage would be governed by the proposed Sign District which would establish illumination and animation standards and would address freeway facing signage with approved guidelines. The Sign District would establish the maximum square footage of signs, provide for commercial advertising standards, and establish illumination and animation standards to properly limit and regulate the proposed integral electronic displays. The Property does not currently include any open space. A substantial portion of the Project would include landscaped courtyards and pathways and other open space features that connect the various proposed uses to establish a pedestrian-oriented environment within the Project s vicinity. The Project would include approximately 140,000 square feet of open space, of which 85 percent would be common open space and 15 percent would be private open space (e.g., unit patios). Approximately 24 percent (28,424 square feet) of the common open space would be planted with ground cover, shrubs, or trees. The common open space would be landscaped and would consist of public courtyards, including a public courtyard that would connect Hill Street to Main Street. At least 317 trees would be planted throughout the Property, including tree wells in the parkways along the Property s perimeter. The conversion of a 7.5-acre surface parking into a dynamic mixed-use project with significant open space and community amenities would enhance the built environment in the surrounding neighborhood and would perform a function and provide a service that is essential and beneficial to the community, the city, and the region. The existing REEF building would be retained and expanded by approximately 8,000 square feet to incorporate a new restaurant and additional outdoor space to accommodate events on the rooftop. In addition, to accommodate the ongoing evolution of The REEF to support design, prototyping, and development of new products in a collaborative atmosphere, up to 180,000 square feet of the space that is currently used for wholesale/showroom operations within the building may be reconfigured into creative office space. Finally, on the ground floor, 30,000 square feet would be converted to: (i) 20,000 square feet of retail and (ii) 10,000 square feet of restaurant space to support the design, development, manufacturing, distribution, and exposition functions that locate in The REEF in the future, as well as providing the same services to outside users. 9

10 10 Figure 1: Project Site.

11 11 Figure 2: Rendering of the Project.

12 3.0 CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT HISTORY 3.1 Southeast Los Angeles 5 The Project Site is located within the Southeast Los Angeles Community Pan Area adjacent to downtown Los Angeles. The northern section of the Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan Area was within the original Los Angeles city boundary (incorporated in 1850). The remainder of the Community Plan Area was consolidated or annexed into the City of Los Angeles between 1859 and The Community Plan Area includes the neighborhoods of Historic South Central, South Park, Central Alameda, Florence, Green Meadows, Broadway Manchester, and Watts. 1 Watts was an incorporated city prior to its consolidation into the City of Los Angeles. The Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan Area developed in a southward pattern beginning in the late 19 th century, as the city s growing network of streetcars allowed for development outside the historic city center. Though the area north of Slauson Boulevard was largely built out by the late 1910s, at this time the land to the south was still largely undeveloped and relatively remote. Much of it was used for vegetable and fruit cultivation by Chinese and Japanese residents. In 1903, however, a group of investors evicted the farmers and constructed the Ascot Park horse racing track at generally the area south of Slauson Boulevard and east of Avalon Boulevard. Referred to as being located in the no man s land on the skinny stretch of territory running from Los Angeles to the sea, Ascot Park quickly became known as a notorious den of gambling and drinking. Its investors hoped to incorporate the area, and though unsuccessful, the larger area was known as Ascot Park until the late teens when the park (which converted to automobile racing from horse racing in the late 1900s) was dissolved altogether. The removal of the vast acreage of Ascot Park freed the land for residential and industrial development, which ensued at a monumental pace south of Slauson Boulevard in the 1920s. The Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan Area became the center of the city s African American community during the first half of the 20 th century. The African American community in Los Angeles was first concentrated in the historic city center, around the neighborhood that is now Little Tokyo. As the community grew, it began moving south after the turn of the 20 th century. Central Avenue was the primary thoroughfare around which this 12 5 History of the Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan Area taken from Galvin Preservation Associates, SurveyLA: Historic Resources Survey Report - Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan Area, prepared for the City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, March 2012.

13 movement and development was centered, and African Americans created a vibrant community there. Most of the Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan Area was occupied by ranchos in its earliest period of development after European settlement. There are no resources remaining from this period in the Community Plan Area. The earliest residential subdivisions were developed in the northeastern neighborhoods of the Community Plan Area nearest to Downtown during the real estate boom of the 1880s that followed the connection of Los Angeles to the transcontinental railroad network. Development extended southward from the city center along streetcar lines in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries. Southeast Los Angeles largely comprises single family neighborhoods, which followed a typical development pattern with commercial corridors along larger streets and single family residential development along smaller, gridded streets in between. Multi family duplex and fourplex property types are scattered throughout these early developments. Commercial development along major thoroughfares typically includes historic theaters, restaurants, one to three story mixed use commercial and residential buildings, gas stations, and banks. The majority of resources from this period of development date from the 1890s to the 1920s. Residential lots were generally long and narrow and were laid out along a regular grid pattern of streets. Commercial development was laid out to accommodate the streetcar and, later, the automobile. Even though the Community Plan Area was largely built out by the 1930s, some redevelopment and infill resulted in construction of buildings in the post-world War II era, largely including commercial and industrial buildings and public housing complexes. There is a significant amount of industrial development in the Community Plan Area, and there are large portions zoned for industrial use. 3.2 The Furniture Industry in Los Angeles Furniture stores enjoyed visual prominence since the 1890s owing to the space requirements of maintaining an adequate stock. 6 Even in 1906, Los Angeles furniture stores, such as those operated by Barker Brothers, the California Furniture Company, and the Los Angeles Furniture Company, occupied large amounts of square footage in comparison to other store types operating at the time. 7 By 1910, 13 6 Richard Longstreth, City Center to Regional Mall: Architecture, the Automobile, and Retailing in Los Angeles, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), p Longstreth, City Center to Regional Mall, 24.

14 furniture stores in Los Angeles had increased threefold, with a significant amount of these stores located outside of the city s urban core. 8 Furniture store expansion was limited throughout the 1920s, with the exception of the Barker Brothers furniture stores. They claimed to be the largest in the trade west of Chicago and took aggressive steps to dominate the [Los Angeles furniture] market. 9 Though several types of stores most notably those selling clothing underwent significant remodeling projects in the 1930s, furniture stores remained much the same as they were prior to the beginning of the Great Depression. 10 The 1930s introduced unions to the furniture industry, sparking an era of strikes, negotiations, and pushes for employees of furniture stores and factories to unionize. Through the mid-20 th century, furniture was not among the top industries in Los Angeles County (those being the motion picture and aircraft industries); however, by 1957 there were $300,000,000 worth of wholesale furniture sales in Los Angeles. This number constituted the majority of furniture sales in the state of California at the time. 11 In 1983, the furniture industry employed about 47,000 people in Los Angeles County, mostly in small factories with fewer than 500 workers. 12 LA Mart was, at the time, the wholesale trade that [catered] to retail stores REEF Building Site History Construction began on the REEF in It originally served as a display showroom for wholesale sales of gift items, decorative accessories, furniture, art, and related interior design products. The building was designed in the Midcentury Modern architectural style by noted local architect Earl T. Heitschmidt. It was developed by the Los Angeles Home Furniture Manufacturers Association, which moved into the building that same year. The building became the new headquarters for the Los Angeles Furniture Mart, which had been located at 2155 East 7 th Street for 22 years. 14 The building has been in continuous operation as a wholesale market in 14 8 Longstreth, City Center to Regional Mall, Longstreth, City Center to Regional Mall, Longstreth, City Center to Regional Mall, Leonard Pitt and Dale Pitt, Los Angeles A to Z: An Encyclopedia of the City and County, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997), 220; State Furniture Industry at 350 million Mark: Convention Told $300,000,000 of Yearly Wholesale Total Is in County, Los Angeles Times, October 30, Pitt and Pitt, Los Angeles A to Z, Pitt and Pitt, Los Angeles A to Z, Charles C. Cohan, Fact and Comment, Los Angeles Times, March 20, 1955; Financing Plans Set for Furniture Mart, Los Angeles Times, July 3, 1955.

15 downtown Los Angeles since its original construction. In 1959, the building was renamed the Los Angeles Home Furnishings Mart because the mart [displayed] all types of appliances as well as furniture. 15 The building operated under that name until 1975, when the management decided to emphasize gift showrooms and changed the building s name to the L.A. Mart. In 1998, Vornado Realty Trust, a real estate investment trust, acquired the L.A. Mart building from the Joseph P. Kennedy Enterprises, the Kennedy family holding company. Kennedy Enterprises owned and operated a number of merchandise marts across the country, including Chicago, Los Angeles, and Boston. The $630 million transaction included the purchase of the L.A. Mart, the Chicago Merchandise Mart, and other related assets. 16 While the L.A. Mart was part of the Kennedy family holdings, it was managed by Christopher Kennedy, son of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The Applicant acquired the Property from Vornado in The L.A. Mart was renamed The REEF in 2013, and has evolved from a wholesale operation to a more diversified creative environment that also supports the design, creation, and exhibition of new products. It brings together three distinct communities: the L.A. Mart wholesale showrooms and design center, the Maker City LA creative and production spaces, and the Magic Box exhibition spaces, which host a variety of trade shows and events. Prior to the construction of the Los Angeles Furniture Mart, the REEF s four and a half acre main site, bounded by South Broadway, West Washington Boulevard, South Hill Street, and West 21 st Street, was home to an amusement park (Chutes Park), and, beginning in 1900, a baseball park. From 1911 to 1925, the baseball park was home to the Los Angeles Angel professional baseball team, a Pacific Coast League team associated with various major league franchises, including the Chicago Cubs. The last game played at the site was in September Following the relocation of the baseball park, the site was used to host several circuses. 17 The site was acquired by the Los Angeles Home Furniture Manufacturers Association in The Los Angeles Furniture Makers Association spent ten years planning and designing their new headquarters Furniture Mart under New Name, Los Angeles Times, March 18, Maura Webber Sadovi, A Chicago Exit Strategy? The Wall Street Journal, July 31, (accessed June 2014). 17 Site Preparation Begun for Major Structure, Los Angeles Times, April 15, 1956.

16 before construction finally commenced. In 1958, Prudential Insurance Company of America bought the structure, and leased it back to the Los Angeles Furniture Mart. 18 The construction of the L.A. Furniture Mart in Southeast Los Angeles was a considerable southward extension of the downtown business district. 19 However, the site was selected because it was excellently located in relation to freight depots, warehouses, and manufacturers shipping merchandise. 20 The new headquarters was one of the largest such merchandising centers in the nation, second only to one in High Point, North Carolina. 21 The L.A. Furniture Mart was unusual nationally among major furniture centers in that it [was] operated by the industry itself. 22 The almost 900,000 square-foot, ultramodern building, which officially opened on July 14, 1958, contained wholesale showrooms for about 600 furniture manufacturers, eight-foot corridors, offices, meeting rooms, a restaurant, service facilities, and various commercial establishments, such as a bank and a drug store. 23 Manufacturers showrooms occupied almost every foot of the main section of the building, and the tower housed the lobby, offices, a café, a bank, a 700-seat auditorium, six passenger elevators, and two freight elevators. 24 The roof of the limit-height 25 building was designed as a landing field for helicopters. 26 There were plans to construct a second mart section to the building that would have doubled the amount of exhibit space available to furniture manufacturers; 27 however, these plans were never realized. Construction of the reinforced concrete structure utilized approximately 71,000 tons of concrete. 28 According to the architect, the structural system of continuous flat slab design [permitted] a maximum ceiling height for the display of furnishings, yet [minimized] the Prudential Buys Furniture Mart in $7,350,000 Deal, Los Angeles Times, May 20, Site Preparation Begun for Major structure, Los Angeles Times, April 15, Ibid. 21 Site Preparation Begun for Major Structure, Los Angeles Times, April 15, 1956; Alexander Auerbach, L.A. Furniture Mart Will Break Tradition in Scheduling Shows, Los Angeles Times, March 14, Mart is hub of industry, Los Angeles Times, September 13, Large Building in Downtown Area Readied: FURNITURE MART, Los Angeles Times, June 8, 1958; Historic Ground Broken for Huge Furniture Mart, Los Angeles Times, April 7, Construction Progresses on New Furniture Mart, Los Angeles Times, November 4, From 1911 to November 1956, Los Angeles law imposed a height limit of thirteen stories on all new structures. After November 1956, however, this height limit was repealed. 26 New $7,000,000 Development Set: Plans for Extensive Los Angeles Furniture Mart, Los Angeles Times, March 13, 1955; Large Building in Downtown Area Readied: FURNITURE MART, Los Angeles Times, June 8, Construction Progresses on New Furniture Mart, Los Angeles Times, November 4, Large Building in Downtown Area Readied: FURNITURE MART, Los Angeles Times, June 8, 1958.

17 actual story height [ and the plan succeeded] in reducing wasteful corridor area. 29 The exterior design called for an architectural concrete steel sash, [black] granite and terra cotta trim. 30 A plate-glass front was installed in the building s café, and the Broadway entrance featured a metal awning two stories in height. 31 In 2003, a 40-foot high wood chair was installed in the parking lot of the L.A. Mart. The chair was sent to Los Angeles from the Chicago Merchandise Mart, where it had been a gift from Promosedia, an association of chair and table manufacturers in Manzano, Italy. 32 Built of solid oak, the 24-ton seat stood outside the Chicago showroom in the summer of 2002 for the 35th annual NeoCon world trade show. It was removed prior to the winter to avoid weather damage, and shipped to Los Angeles the following fall. The chair was installed at the L.A. Mart in response to the installation of a chair outside the Pacific Design Center in The Pacific Design Center chair was 25-feet high, and designed by Selbert Perkins Design. Architect Earl T. Heitschmidt Architect Earl Theodore Heitschmidt ( ) was born in Portland, Oregon in 1894, and trained at the University of Oregon ( ). Heitschmidt began his professional career as a draftsman in the office of Whitehouse and Fouilhoux in Portland, where he worked from During World War I, he was a draftsman at the U.S. Navy Yard in Bremerton, Washington ( ). After the war, Heitschmidt was a special student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ( ). Following his studies at M.I.T., Heitschmidt worked as a designer for architect Edwin S. Dodge in Boston (1922), and then for architect A.E. Doyle in Portland. He then served as the Pacific Coast manager for New York-based Schultz & Weaver, Architects from before opening his own practice in Los Angeles in Until his death in 1972, Heitschmidt worked as an architect in Los Angeles, either as the head of his own firm ( ; ; ); or in partnership with Charles Matcham and Paul Davis ( ); Charles Matcham ( ); or Whiting S. Thompson ( ). He was inducted as a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects in Large Building in Downtown Area Readied: FURNITURE MART, Los Angeles Times, June 8, New $7,000,000 Development Set: Plans for Extensive Los Angeles Furniture Mart, Los Angeles Times, March 13, New Facilities at Mart Begun, Los Angeles Times, January 12, Bob Pool, Superlatives Thrown around in a Crosstown Rivalry, Los Angeles Times, February 26, 2004.

18 Heitschmidt had numerous high profile commissions during the course of his long career. He worked on the Los Angeles Biltmore Hotel with the firm Schultz and Weaver (1923), and also designed the Wrigley Mansion in Phoenix ( ); Park La Brea ( ); and the Harvey Mudd Master Plan with Edward Durrell Stone (1956). He served as the associate architect with William Lescaze on the design of CBS Columbia Square in Hollywood (1938). Mid-Century Modern Architecture Mid-century Modern is a term used to describe the post-world War II iteration of the International Style in both residential and commercial design. The International Style was characterized by geometric forms, smooth wall surfaces, and an absence of exterior decoration. Mid-century Modernism is often characterized by a clear expression of structure and materials, large expanses of glass, and open interior plans. The roots of the style can be traced to early Modernists like Richard Neutra and Rudolph Schindler, whose local work inspired second generation Modern architects like Gregory Ain, Craig Ellwood, Harwell Hamilton Harris, Pierre Koenig, Raphael Soriano, and many more. These postwar architects developed an indigenous Modernism that was born from the International Style but matured into a fundamentally regional style. The style gained popularity because its use of standardized, prefabricated materials permitted quick and economical construction. Character-defining features include: Simple geometric forms Expressed structural system Flat roof or low-pitched roof Unadorned wall surfaces Flush-mounted metal frame fixed windows and sliding doors, and clerestory windows Little or no exterior decorative detailing Architectural Description The REEF building is a 12-story commercial/industrial building with a basement originally constructed in The building is located at the northern edge of the property and is flanked to the south by a large surface parking lot that occupies the remainder of the block. A landscaped driveway separates the parking lot from the building. The building is square in plan with one-story projections on its east and west façades; a fourteen-story elevator tower on the south façade; and a two-story lobby wing at the southeast corner. The four corners of the tower are set back at the 12 th floor. The building is Mid-century Modern in style and is of reinforced concrete construction with a flat roof and low parapet. The façades are articulated with pairs of concrete shear walls that extend the full height of the building. 18

19 The blank walls of the first story are articulated with recessed panels of vertical channeling. Fenestration consists primarily of horizontal bands of two-light steel awning windows with fixed glazed spandrels below. Fenestration on the elevator tower consists of single, twolight steel awning windows stacked between continuous piers. There are large, rectangular, nine-light metalframed windows on the south and east façades of the two-story volume at the southeast corner of the tower. The primary entrance is asymmetrically located on the east façade and consists of two pairs of fully-glazed metal storefront doors with sidelights. The doors are set back from the street under a colonnade with square columns clad in black granite. There is a secondary entrance asymmetrically located on the south façade; it consists of a pair of fully-glazed, metal, automatic sliding doors with fixed sidelights under a projecting metal-and-glass canopy. There is a truck loading dock at the southwest corner of the building, facing South Hill Street. The building has undergone several changes over time. In 1971, three major public areas in the Los Angeles Home Furnishings Mart were remodeled the auditorium, foyer, and President s Room. 33 In 1978, several giftware shops were added in the hopes that this would allow the mart to rival New York city and Dallas as giftware centers. 34 At the same time, other interior spaces were remodeled, and lighting and fire safety improvements were undertaken, including complying with new safety requirements for elevators that were required prior to October 1, Most significantly, the building was extensively altered in a seismic retrofit in At that time, the first-story storefront openings on the east, north, and west façades were filled. Twelve exterior concrete shear walls were added, two pairs each on the east, north, and south façades, interrupting and significantly altering the original horizontal emphasis of the ribbon windows. The alteration history is included in Appendix A Home Furnishings Mart Redecoration Outlined, Los Angeles Times, January 10, Home Furnishings Mart Expands Role, Los Angeles Times, June 25, 1978.

20 4.0 REGULATORY REVIEW 4.1 Historical Resources under CEQA CEQA requires that a project s potential environmental impacts, including potential impacts on historical resources, be considered in the decision-making process. Thus, any project that would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource can also have a significant effect on the environment. When the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) was established in 1992, the Legislature amended CEQA to clarify what constitutes an historical resource and under what circumstances a project would significantly impact an historical resource. A substantial adverse change means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired. 35 CEQA defines an historical resource as a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources ( California Register ). 36 The State CEQA Guidelines provide more detail on the types of resources that qualify as historical resources: Mandatory historical resources are resources listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Presumptive historical resources are resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section (k) of the Public Resources Code, or identified as significant in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section (g) of the Public Resources Code unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. Discretionary historical resources are those resources determined by a lead agency to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Generally, this category includes resources that meet the criteria for listing on the California Register. 37 The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register, not included in a local register of historic resources, or CEQA Guidelines PRC Section State CEQA Guidelines Section (a)

21 not identified as significant in an historical resources survey that meets the requirements of Section (g) of the Public Resources Code, does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource for purposes of CEQA. 38 Properties formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places ( National Register ) are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties designated by local municipalities can also be considered historical resources. 4.2 Historic Designations A property may be designated as historic by Federal, State, and local authorities. In order for a building to qualify for listing in the National Register or the California Register, it must meet one or more identified criteria of significance. The property must also retain sufficient architectural integrity to continue to evoke the sense of place and time with which it is historically associated. National Register of Historic Places The National Register is an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the nation's cultural resources. Listing of private property in the National Register does not prohibit under Federal law or regulation any actions which may otherwise be taken by the property owner with respect to the property. 39 The National Park Service administers the National Register program. To be eligible for listing and/or listed in the National Register, a resource must possess significance in American history and culture, architecture, or archaeology. Listing in the National Register is primarily honorary and does not in and of itself provide protection of an historic resource. The primary benefit of listing in the National Register for private owners of historic buildings is the availability of financial and tax incentives. For projects that receive Federal funding, a clearance process must be completed in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Furthermore, state and local regulations may apply to properties listed in the National Register. The criteria for listing in the National Register follow established guidelines for determining the significance of properties. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects: CEQA Guidelines, Section (A)(3) 39 36CFR60, Section 60.2.

22 A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 40 Historic Integrity In addition to meeting at least one of the eligibility criteria listed above, properties must also possess historic integrity to be eligible for the National Register. Historic integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance and is defined as the authenticity of a property s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property s historic period. 41 The National Park Service defines seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. These qualities are defined as follows: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A CFR60, Section Ibid. (4)

23 property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. 42 California Register of Historical Resources The California Register is an authoritative guide in California used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the State's historic resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. 43 The criteria for eligibility for listing in the California Register are based upon National Register criteria. These criteria are: 1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. 2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. 4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. The California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that have been nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register includes the following: California properties formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register, identified with a California Historical Resources Status Code ( Status Code ) 2 in the California Historic Resources Inventory ( HRI ); or listed in the National Register (Status Code 1 in the HRI. State Historical Landmarks No. 770 and all consecutively numbered state historical landmarks following No For state historical landmarks preceding No. 770, the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) shall review their eligibility for the California Register in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the State Historical Resources Commission ( Commission ) National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, (44) 43 California PRC, Section (a).

24 Points of historical interest which have been reviewed by the OHP and recommended for listing by the Commission for inclusion in the California Register in accordance with criteria adopted by the commission. 44 Local Designation Programs The Los Angeles City Council designates Historic-Cultural Monuments on recommendation of the City s Cultural Heritage Commission. Chapter 9, Section of the City of Los Angeles Administrative Code defines a Historic-Cultural Monument as follows: a Historic-Cultural Monument (Monument) is any site (including significant trees or other plant life located on the site), building or structure of particular historic or cultural significance to the City of Los Angeles, including historic structures or sites in which the broad cultural, economic or social history of the nation, State or community is reflected or exemplified; or which is identified with historic personages or with important events in the main currents of national, State or local history; or which embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, inherently valuable for a study of a period, style or method of construction; or a notable work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual genius influenced his or her age. Local designation recognizes the unique architectural value of certain structures and helps to protect their distinctive qualities. In addition to meeting the local eligibility criteria, a building may be eligible for Historic-Cultural Monument status if it retains integrity, which is defined as does [the building] still convey its historic significance through the retention of its original design and materials? California PRC, Section (d). 45 City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, What Makes a Resource Historically Significant? (accessed July 2014).

25 5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES Individual properties located on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site are examined in the following analysis for the purposes of identifying potential historic resources under CEQA. 5.1 Project Site There is one potential discretionary historic resource located on the Project Site: the REEF building, originally constructed by the Los Angeles Furniture Makers Association in 1958 and designed by noted local architect Earl T. Heitschmidt. Existing condition photographs of the Project Site are included in Appendix B. Evaluation of Integrity The REEF building has undergone several alterations over its lifetime, including a seismic retrofit in 1995 that drastically altered its exterior appearance, and therefore the REEF building no longer retains sufficient integrity to convey any potential significance. An evaluation of the seven aspects of integrity as applied to the REEF building follows: Location: The building remains on its original site and therefore retains integrity of location. areas were altered the auditorium, foyer, and President s Room. In 1972, the entrance was altered and a new entrance canopy was constructed. In 1978, additional interior spaces were remodeled, and lighting and fire safety improvements were undertaken. Most importantly, the building was extensively altered in a seismic retrofit in The ground floor storefronts along the east, north, and west façades were replaced with solid walls relieved with vertical channeling. Twelve exterior concrete shear walls were added, two pairs each on the primary east, north, and south façades and extending the full height of the building. The shear walls interrupt and significantly alter the original horizontal emphasis of the bands of ribbon windows, and eliminate the visual contrast with the verticallyoriented elevator tower. The building therefore does not retain integrity of design. Setting: The existing neighborhood of primarily low-rise commercial and industrial uses continues to reflect the property s historic setting. The building retains integrity of setting. 25 Design: The REEF building has undergone a number of alterations that have negatively impacted its original Mid-century Modern design. In 1971, three major public Materials: Because of alterations to its main entrance and interior public spaces, the removal of segments of the ribbon windows to install exterior shear walls, and the

26 replacement of the ground floor storefront openings with solid infill walls, the REEF building no longer retains integrity of materials. Workmanship: The REEF building has undergone several alterations over time and retains little physical evidence of period construction techniques. It therefore does not retain integrity of workmanship. Feeling: Because of the addition of the exterior shear walls that interrupt the original horizontal ribbon windows, the building no longer conveys its original Midcentury Modern design. It does not retain integrity of feeling. Association: Although the REEF building was owned by the Kennedy family, it does not meet the criteria for an association with important historic events or persons, and it no longer conveys its original Mid-century Modern design. It does not retain integrity of association. Evaluation of Potential Significance The REEF building was evaluated for potential eligibility for listing in the National Register, the California Register, and as a local Historic-Cultural Monument. The REEF building is not listed in the California Historical Resources Inventory ( HRI ). 46 It was not surveyed as part of the Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan Area for SurveyLA, as parcels zoned for industrial uses were excluded from that phase of the survey. 47 Criterion A/1/1 (Events): The REEF building is located in the Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan Area, which contains a significant number of industrial parcels. It was originally associated with the Los Angeles Furniture Makers Association, who commissioned the building as its new headquarters in 1955 (construction was completed in 1958). The new headquarters was one of the largest merchandising centers in the nation, and it was unusual among major furniture centers in that it was operated by the industry itself. However, the furniture industry is not a significant industry in Los Angeles, and the establishment of the Los Angeles The HRI is maintained by the California Office of Historic Preservation, and includes information on historical resources that have been identified and evaluated through one of the programs that OHP administers under the National Historic Preservation Act or the California Public Resources Code. 47 Galvin Preservation Associates, SurveyLA: Historic Resources Survey Report - Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan Area, 3. Industrial properties will be surveyed as a group in a subsequent phase of fieldwork.

27 Furniture Mart in Southeast Los Angeles does not constitute a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history. In addition, the building has been substantially altered and no longer conveys any potential historic significance. Therefore, the REEF building is not eligible for listing in the National Register, the California Register, or as a local Historic-Cultural Monument under Criterion A/1/1. Criterion B/2/2 (People): The REEF building was owned and operated by Kennedy Enterprises, the Kennedy family holding company, and managed by Christopher Kennedy, son of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Kennedy Enterprises owned and operated a number of merchandise marts across the country, including Chicago, Los Angeles, and Boston. Properties are eligible under Criterion B when they are associated with individuals whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented. The criterion is generally restricted to those properties that illustrate (rather than commemorate) a person's important achievements, and the persons associated with the property must be individually significant within a historic context. A property is not eligible if its only justification for significance is that it was owned or used by a person who is a member of an identifiable profession, class, or social or ethnic group. It must be shown that the person gained importance within his or her profession or group, and the association must be documented. Each property associated with an important individual should be compared to other associated properties to identify those that best represent the person's historic contributions. 48 Although the REEF building was part of the Kennedy family holdings, it does not meet eligibility Criterion B/2/2 or the specific guidelines developed by the National Park Service for evaluating properties for an association with an important person. In addition, the building has been substantially altered and no longer conveys any potential historic significance. Therefore, it does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register, the California Register, or as a local Historic-Cultural Monument under Criterion B/2/2. Criterion C/3/3 (Architecture): The REEF building was designed in the Mid-century Modern architectural style by noted local architect Earl T. Heitschmidt. It exhibits significant character-defining features of the style, including the flat roof with low parapet, unadorned wall surfaces, and horizontal bands of windows. However, the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

28 building s original design has been severely compromised by the addition of the twelve exterior concrete shear walls in 1995, which interrupt and significantly alter the original horizontal emphasis of the ribbon windows. As a result, the building no longer retains integrity of design, materials, workmanship, or feeling. Therefore, the building is not eligible for listing in the National Register, the California Register, or as a local Historic-Cultural Monument under Criterion C/3/ Previously Identified Historic Resources in the Project Vicinity The Project Site is located within the Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan Area. The immediate vicinity is characterized by a mix of low- to highintensity commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential uses, which vary widely in building style and period of construction. There are no properties in the Project vicinity listed in the California Historical Resources Inventory (HRI). The Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan Area was surveyed by SurveyLA, the city of Los Angeles citywide survey effort, in Although the uses in the immediate vicinity vary, the majority of the parcels surrounding the Project Site are zoned for industrial use (as shown in Figure 3). Therefore, according to the methodology for SurveyLA, most of the properties in the area were not evaluated as part of the Southeast Los Angeles survey. Instead, industrial parcels will be surveyed as a whole in a subsequent phase of the project. Parcels in the Project vicinity that are zoned for uses other than industrial were surveyed as part of the Southeast Los Angeles survey for SurveyLA. Of these, there were no properties in the immediate Project vicinity that were identified as potential historic resources. SurveyLA identified the Adams and Maple Planning District, which is partially located in the immediate Project vicinity. Planning districts are areas that are related geographically and by theme, but do not meet eligibility standards for designation. This is generally because the majority of the contributing features have been altered resulting in a cumulative impact on the overall integrity of the area making it ineligible as a historic district. 49 The Adams and Maple Planning District is a large, multi-block district of 541 single-family houses and a combination of 42 institutional and commercial buildings. It is bounded by Main Street and Trinity Street to the west and east and 23rd and 29th Streets to the north and south. The majority of the residences in the Adams and Maple Planning District were constructed in Galvin Preservation Associates, SurveyLA: Historic Resources Report Southeast Los Angeles, 4.

29 the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries as vernacular hipped or gable roof cottages, or in period architectural styles including Queen Anne, American Foursquare, and Dutch Colonial Revival. Although the area retains consistency of massing, scale, and architectural vocabulary, the majority of the individual buildings have been altered. The cumulative impact of these alterations, both to individual buildings and to the district as a whole, has compromised the overall integrity of the district. Therefore, SurveyLA determined that the area does not retain sufficient integrity for designation as a historic district, although it may merit special consideration in the planning process. 50 Planning districts are not considered historic resources for the purposes of CEQA. Therefore, there are no previously identified historic resources in the Project vicinity. 5.3 Potential Historic Resources in the Project Vicinity 51 Historic Resources Group conducted a reconnaissance survey and preliminary research on properties within the immediate Project vicinity in order to identify any potential historic resources that may be impacted by the Project. Contextual views of the Project Vicinity are included in Appendix C. Properties south of the Project Site are predominantly one- and two-story brick warehouse, commercial, or office buildings. They are designed in a variety of architectural styles, and in general display a low degree of physical integrity. Many of the properties have been significantly altered with replacement windows, infilled or new openings, and altered storefronts. Other buildings are boarded up and in disrepair. A small number of properties with potential historic significance were identified in the Project vicinity. These are identified on the map in Figure 4: Los Angeles Trade-Tech College (LATTC) is located at 400 West Washington Boulevard, immediately to the west of the Project Site. LATTC was originally established in 1925, and is the oldest of the public two-year colleges in the Los Angeles Community College District. 52 However, LATTC was not identified as a potential historic resource by SurveyLA, and the buildings on the campus do not reflect the school s early history. The majority of the campus facilities Analysis and evaluation of Adams and Maple Planning District from Galvin Preservation Associates, SurveyLA: Southeast Los Angeles Survey Findings, prepared for the City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources, March 2012, CFinal3_12.pdf (accessed May 2014). 51 This section in draft form for further discussion. 52 Los Angeles Trade-Tech College, About Us, etails.aspx?collegeid=746&txt=los%20angeles%20tr ade-tech%20college (accessed May 2014).

30 were constructed in the recent past. Therefore, LATTC does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register, the California Register, or as a local Historic- Cultural Monument, and the campus is not considered a historic resource under CEQA. The Hirsch Apartments at 300 East Washington Boulevard is a Neoclassical apartment house constructed in There have been some alterations, including the addition of security railings to the balconies and the replacement of some windows on the secondary façade. However, it may be eligible for listing in the California Register and as a Historic-Cultural Monument under Criterion 1/1 as an example of early multi-family residential development in the area. Therefore, it should be considered a discretionary historic resource under CEQA. The former International Mart at 155 West Washington Boulevard was built in 1927 and designed by Meyer & Holler. The building retains sufficient historic integrity to convey its historic significance, despite the replacement of the storefronts and some windows. The building appears potentially eligible for listing in the California Register and as a local Historic-Cultural Monument under Criterion 1/1 as an example of early commercial development in Southeast Los Angeles, and under Criterion 3/3 as the work of Meyer & Holler. Therefore, 155 West Washington Boulevard should be considered a discretionary historic resource under CEQA. 107 West Washington Boulevard was built in 1912 by architects Neher & Skilling. The building retains sufficient historic integrity to convey its historic significance, despite the replacement of the storefronts and some windows. It may be eligible for listing in the California Register and as a local Historic-Cultural Monument under Criterion 1/1 as an example of early mixed use commercial/residential development in the area. Therefore, 107 West Washington Boulevard should be considered a discretionary historic resource under CEQA. 5.4 Summary of Historic Resources The Project Site does not contain any resources considered historical under CEQA, and there are no historic resources in the Project Vicinity that are listed in the HRI or have been identified as potential historic resources through survey evaluation. There are three properties in the Project vicinity that display evidence of historic significance and therefore should be considered discretionary historic resources for purposes of CEQA: 300 East Washington Boulevard, 155 West 30

31 Washington Boulevard, and 107 West Washington Boulevard. Photographs of these properties are included in Appendix D and E. 31

32 32 Figure 3: Land Use in the Project vicinity. Source: City of Los Angeles Zone Info & Map Access System (ZIMAS).

33 33 Figure 4: Potential Historic Resources in the Vicinity of the Project Site.

34 6.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS 6.1 Framework for Analysis The following analysis is informed by National, State and local guidelines. CEQA Thresholds The CEQA Guidelines, as amended, indicate that a project would normally have a significant impact on historical resources if it would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. A substantial adverse change in significance occurs if the project involves: 53 Demolition of a significant resource; Relocation that does not maintain the integrity and (historical/architectural) significance of a significant resource; Conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a significant resource which does not conform to the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings; or Construction that reduces the integrity or significance of important resources on the site or in the vicinity. The State Legislature, in enacting the California Register, amended CEQA to clarify which properties are significant, as well as which project impacts are considered to be significantly adverse. A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. 54 A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. 55 The Guidelines go on to state that [t]he significance of an historic resource is materially impaired when a project [d]emolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources local register of historic resources or its identification in a historic resources survey Analysis of Potential Impacts to Historic Resources The following analysis uses the thresholds provided in the CEQA statute and CEQA Guidelines, as implemented in the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide CEQA Guidelines, section (b). 54 CEQA Guidelines, section (b). 55 CEQA Guidelines, section (b)(1). 56 CEQA Guidelines, section (b)(2).

35 1. Would the Project involve the demolition of an historical resource? The Project does not require the demolition or alteration of any historical resource. No historical resources are located on the Project Site and the Project would not physically impact any potential historical resources in the surrounding area. 2. Would the Project involve relocation that does not maintain the integrity of a significant resource? The Project does not include the relocation of any buildings or structures, either on the Project Site or in the Project vicinity. 3. Would the Project involve conversion, rehabilitation or alteration of a significant historical resource which does not conform to the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings? The Project does not involve the conversion, rehabilitation or alteration, of any historic resource. The proposed new development will be confined within the Project Site and no historically significant buildings, structures, objects, or sites are located on the Project Site. Moreover, the Project does not involve the conversion, rehabilitation or alteration of any historic resources located in the vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project does not involve the conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of any historic resource that does not meet the Secretary of the Interior s Standards. 4. Would the Project involve construction that materially impairs the integrity or significance of important resources on the site or in the vicinity? The Project Site does not include any historic resources; therefore the Project would not materially impair the significance of important resources on the Project Site. Since the L.A. Mart building no longer retains historic integrity, the addition of new digital signs on three facades and a rooftop addition would not constitute construction that materially impairs the integrity of historic resources on the Project Site. There are three discretionary historic resources within the Project vicinity. According to CEQA guidelines, the significance of an historical resource is materially impaired and constitutes a substantial adverse change in the significance of that historical resource, if the project would materially alter the immediate surroundings of the historical resource such that (a) it could no longer be listed in, or be eligible for listing in, the California Register or (b) it could no longer be included in a local register of historical resources or identified as an 35

36 historical resource in an historical resource survey. 57 The Project would add height and density to two parcels currently used for surface parking. As a result, the surroundings of the three potential historic resources in the Project vicinity would be altered. In order for this alteration to be considered a substantial adverse change, however, it must be shown that the integrity and/or significance of the historic resources would be materially impaired by the proposed alteration. A resource is not materially impaired unless it is altered in an adverse manner to the point that its physical characteristics fail to convey its historical significance. 58 The Project is a mixed-use development that would span both parcels of the Project Site. The density of the new construction is distributed throughout the Project Site. Two large towers are proposed: a 35-story tower at the southern portion of the Project Site, oriented to 21 st Street, and a 32-story tower on the corner of Washington Boulevard and Main Street. In an effort to promote pedestrian development consistent with the urban environment of the neighborhood, the residential buildings would be developed either along the property line or within required setbacks. The new construction is separated from the potential historic resources by Washington Boulevard, and therefore the new construction is adequately separated from the historic buildings and there is no impact to the immediate surroundings of the potential historic resources. Although the proposed towers are considerably taller than surrounding development, they are consistent with established height limits for the area. The overall scale and density of the Project is mitigated by the open space on the site, the variety of size and massing proposed for the new construction, and the isolation of the tower elements to the north and south of the Project Site so that the surrounding buildings are not overwhelmed by the contrast in scale. The Project proposes new signage for the existing REEF building, the north and south residential towers, and the hotel building. The new signage has the greatest potential to impact the building at 155 West Washington Boulevard, as it is located directly across the street from the Project Site. However, the building is separated from the Project Site by Washington Boulevard, providing separation between the potential historic resource and the Project Site. All signage would be governed by the proposed Sign District which would establish illumination and animation standards and would address CEQA Guidelines, section (b) (1). 58 CEQA Guidelines, section (b) (1).

37 freeway facing signage with approved guidelines. The Sign District would establish the maximum square footage of signs, provide for commercial advertising standards, and establish illumination and animation standards to properly limit and regulate the proposed integral electronic displays. The proposed new signage, as governed by the Sign District, would not constitute an impact to the immediate surroundings of potential historic resources in the Project vicinity including 155 West Washington Boulevard. While implementation of the Project will alter the setting of the potential historic resources, it will not materially impair their significance. All three potential historic resources will continue to convey their historic significance following completion of the Project, and therefore the Project would not materially impair the significance of important resources in the Project vicinity. 6.3 Summary of Potential Impacts to Historic Resources Analysis of potential impacts using the CEQA thresholds reveals the following: The Project does not involve construction that reduces the integrity or significance of historic resources in the Project vicinity. For these reasons, the Project will not result in significant adverse impacts on identified historic resources located on the Project Site or in the Project vicinity. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to historic resources as defined by CEQA. As such, no mitigation measures related to historic resources are required. 37 No historic resources are present on the Project Site. The Project would not demolish, relocate or alter any historic resources in the Project vicinity.

38 BIBLIOGRAPHY 38 Auerbach, Alexander. L.A. Furniture Mart Will Break Tradition in Scheduling Shows. Los Angeles Times, March 14, California Public Resources Code (Sections ) California Code of Regulations, (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections ) California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6, California Register and National Register: A Comparison, Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA. %202011%20update.pdf Code of Federal Regulations, (Title 36, Part 60) Cohan, Charles C. Fact and Comment. Los Angeles Times, March 20, Construction Progresses on New Furniture Mart. Los Angeles Times. November 4, Financing Plans Set for Furniture Mart. Los Angeles Times. July 3, Furniture Mart Under New Name. Los Angeles Times, March 18, Galvin Preservation Associates, SurveyLA: Historic Resources Survey Report Southeast Los Angeles, prepared for the City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, March, Historic Ground Broken for Huge Furniture Mart. Los Angeles Times, April 7, Historic Ground Broken for Huge Furniture Mart. Los Angeles Times, April 7, Home Furnishings Mart Expands Role. Los Angeles Times, June 25, Home Furnishings Mart Redecoration Outlined. Los Angeles Times, January 10, Historic Resources Inventory, California State Office of Historic Preservation, August Large Building in Downtown Area Readied: FURNITURE MART. Los Angeles Times, June 8, Longstreth, Richard. City Center to Regional Mall: Architecture, the Automobile, and Retailing in Los Angeles, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.

39 Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide, City of Los Angeles, Mart is hub of industry. Los Angeles Times, September 13, National Register Bulletin 16A. How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Washington D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997 New $7,000,000 Development Set: Plans for Extensive Los Angeles Furniture Mart. Los Angeles Times, March 13, New Facilities at Mart Begun. Los Angeles Times, January 12, Pool, Bob. Superlatives Thrown around in a Crosstown Rivalry, Los Angeles Times, February 26, Prudential Buys Furniture Mart in $7,350,000 Deal. Los Angeles Times, May 20, Sadovi, Maura Webber. A Chicago Exit Strategy? The Wall Street Journal, July 31, (accessed June 2014). Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. Site Preparation Begun for Major Structure. Los Angeles Times. April 15, 1956.

40 APPENDIX A: ALTERATION HISTORY 40 Building Permit Description Owner Architect Date Permit No. First floor alteration and Mezzanine (20 x 20 ) Furniture Manufacturers Association Heitschmidt & Thompson 4/9/1958 LA97459 New Canopy and Loading Dock Los Angeles Furniture Mart Lester Paley (Engr) 5/4/1959 LA31092 Fill up existing window opening with metal lath plaster stone veneer on one side Alexander Smith Car. Co 12/9/1959 LA48971 Auxiliary Stairway for Equipment Maintenance L. A. Furniture Mart Samuel Schultz (Engr) 9/10/1963 LA47741 Add 15 high cooling tower on roof L. A. Home Furniture Mart Walter N. Snow (Engr) 10/20/1963 LA51005 New stair from 1 st to 2 nd floor Prudential Insurance Ruthroff- Englekirk (Engr) 6/21/1972 LA53024 Add ceiling rotunda on ground floor Prudential Insurance 7/7/1972 LA53794 Cut new opening; install aluminum door recessed 1 st floor Prudential Insurance 7/19/1972 LA54558 Entrance canopy; entirely on private property fixed canopy-flame treated canvas on galvanized metal frame L. A. Home Furnishing Mart 8/3/1972 LA55394 Install ground room mirrors on aluminum frame work on wall at reception area 1 st floor Home Furnishings Mart 8/4/1972 LA55527 Install 5 partitions & install 5 glass windows; cut openings as indicated George Fenton Fullcircle 8/25/1972 LA56804 Install 2 aluminum and glass screens to hide 1 st floor L. A. Furnishing Mart 9/10/1972 LA58271 Install entry tile & graphics per plan George Fenton Fullcircle 9/11/1972 LA5707 Cut 2 openings in walls at 3 rd & 4 th floors (4 total) & install rated doors International Fastener Res. Corp. DBA LA Mart Brandow & Johnston Assoc. (Engr) 5/19/1978 LA63404

41 Building Permit Description Owner Architect Date Permit No. 41 Increase height of 2 openings by 12 from 7 to 8 in concrete wall on 2 nd floor at column lines H-1 & I-13 Remodel of existing tenant lease space; construction of new non-bearing partitions; new floor/wall finishes. Remove mezzanine assembly and stairs leading to mezzanine. Remove portion of metal fence equipment enclosure. Construct new portion 7-2 high and approx long metal fence for equipment enclosure adjacent to north west exterior wall of building on ground level Remodel ground floor storage area and partition off from lobby area. Create new exterior door opening and exterior walkway/stair revision Change portion of entrance lobby of office building to new café kiosk, remodel existing restroom access, new mill work, finishes and lighting Prudential Ins Co of America La Mart Properties Llc La Mart Properties Llc La Mart Properties Llc La Mart Properties Llc 11/16/2001 LA /5/2006 LA /5/2011 LA /5/2011 LA /8/2011 LA65789

42 APPENDIX B: EXISTING CONDITION PHOTOGRAPHS: PROJECT SITE 42 View looking Southeast at Washington Blvd. and Hill St. Historic Resources Group, November View looking East from Hill Street. Historic Resources Group, November 2013.

43 43 View looking Northwest from Broadway. Historic Resources Group, November View looking North from Broadway. Historic Resources Group, November 2013.

44 44 Detail of Entrance on Broadway, looking Northwest. Historic Resources Group, November Detail of Entrance on South Façade, looking Northeast. Historic Resources Group, November 2013.

45 45 Detail of Ribbon Windows. Historic Resources Group, November Detail of Casement Windows. Historic Resources Group, November 2013.

46 APPENDIX C: EXISTING CONDITION PHOTOGRAPHS: PROJECT VICINITY CONTEXT VIEWS 46 View looking Southeast on Washington Blvd. and Hill St. Historic Resources Group, November View looking North on Hill St. and Washington Blvd. Historic Resources Group, November 2013.

47 47 View looking West on Washington Blvd. Historic Resources Group, November View looking South on Main St. Historic Resources Group, November 2013.

48 48 View looking South on Main St. Historic Resources Group, November View looking West on 21 st Street and Broadway. Historic Resources Group, November 2013.

49 49 View looking Southwest on Broadway and 22 nd Street. Historic Resources Group, November View looking North on Hill St. Historic Resources Group, November 2013.

50 APPENDIX D: EXISTING CONDITION PHOTOGRAPHS: DISCRETIONARY RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY W. Washington Blvd, Architects: Meyer & Holler (1927). Historic Resources Group, November W. Washington Blvd, Architects: Neher & Skilling (1912). Historic Resources Group, November 2013.

51 E. Washington Blvd (1912). Historic Resources Group, November 2013.

52 APPENDIX E: EXISTING CONDITION PHOTOGRAPHS: PROPERTIES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY DETERMINED NOT ELIGIBLE AS HISTORIC RESOURCES 52 Los Angeles Trade Technical College (Est. 1927). Historic Resources Group, November S. Hill St, Los Angeles Metropolitan Courthouse (c.1960). Historic Resources Group, November 2013.

53 53 Adams & Maple Residential Planning District, context view of 23 rd Street. Historic Resources Group, November Adams & Maple Residential Planning District, context view of 24 th Street. Historic Resources Group, November 2013.