Los Angeles Department of City Planning

RECOMMENDATION REPORT
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION HEARING DATE: TIME: PLACE: November 3, 2011 10:00 AM City Hall, Room 1010 200 N. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 CASE NO.: CHC-2007-4658-HCM-CC1 HCM: 905 Location: Crossing the Los Angeles River on 6th Street between S. Boyle Ave. and Mateo St. Council District: 14 Community Plan Area: Boyle Heights/ Central City North Area Planning Commission: East Los Angeles/ Central Neighborhood Council: Boyle Heights/Historic Cultural Legal Description: Bridge #53C1880

REQUEST:

Commission Review of Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (FEIR/EIS) and Commission Comments to City Council on the Proposed Demolition and Replacement of the 6th Street Viaduct (HCM #905) City of Los Angeles That the Cultural Heritage Commission:

OWNER: RECOMMENDATION Adopt the proposed letter.

MICHAEL J. LOGRANDE Director of Planning [SIGNED ORIGINAL IN FILE] Ken Bernstein, AICP, Manager Office of Historic Resources Prepared by: [SIGNED ORIGINAL IN FILE] Edgar Garcia, Preservation Planner Office of Historic Resources Attachments: A) Draft Letter to City Council B) October 14, 2011 Letter from CHC to Board of Public Works C) July 30, 2009 Letter from CHC to BOE D) January 29, 2008 OHP/BOE Agreement

FEIR/EIS for the 6th Street Viaduct Demolition and Replacement CHC-2007-4658-HCM-CC1 Page 2 of 7 FINDINGS See Draft Letter in Attachment A. BACKGROUND Built in 1932, this reinforced concrete T-beam/steel arched bridge exhibits character-defining features of Art Deco-Streamline Moderne monumental bridge design. Located on 6th Street as it crosses the Los Angeles River between Boyle Heights and Downtown Los Angeles, the subject structure rests on several T-beam vertical piers with three larger vertical piers at its center where it crosses the Los Angeles River. Two massive 150-foot wide, asymmetrical steel through-arch spans originate at the center pier and terminate at the deck level. Two pairs of 40foot high monumental pylons with fluted and zig-zag design are located on both approaches to the Sixth Street Bridge. A single non-structural mid-size pylon with rounded balustrade and landscaping is located on the intersection of Sixth Street and Boyle Avenue as a decorative prelude to the bridge entrance (a parallel decorative structure is now missing). The deck of the bridge exhibits a sculpted concrete railing with incised stepped rounded arches. Low-height pylons support rounded electroliers with geometric and floral designs. Four pairs of octagonal light fixtures with geometric and floral designs are located in the middle section of the deck. The Sixth Street Bridge was designed by Merrill Butler, Engineer of Bridges and Structures for the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, along with Louis Huot and Louis Blume. At nearly 4,000 feet (2/3rds of a mile long), the subject structure was the largest and longest bridge constructed on the Los Angeles River and the largest concrete bridge built in Los Angeles. The subject structure forms part of a monumental bridge building program dating from 19091932 that oversaw the construction of several bridges across the Los Angeles River. While addressing the transportation needs of the growing metropolis in the early 20th century, these bridges also embodied the values of the City Beautiful Movement which sought to beautify urban areas with Beaux-Arts style architectural design and planning for public buildings, structures, and infrastructure. The Sixth Street Bridge was the culmination of this effort to construct concrete bridges on a monumental scale and design, through its sheer enormous size and length and its attention to architectural detail. The Sixth Street Bridge was also the first bridge in Los Angeles to move beyond the Beaux-Arts and Period Revival design aesthetic, moving away from literal references to Classical styles to sparser and more streamlined designs. As the first bridge in Los Angeles to incorporate Moderne and Art Deco design elements, the subject structure greatly influenced future bridge design in Los Angeles. Nearly all bridges built by the City of Los Angeles after 1932 would be constructed in Moderne styles with many, like the West Boulevard Bridge in Mid-City (1933) and the Gaffey Street Bridge in San Pedro (1935), using decorative elements directly lifted from the Sixth Street Bridge. Alterations include the removal of two pairs of central piers and the addition of contemporary street lighting to the subject structures electroliers. The Sixth Street Bridge was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by the Caltrans Historic Bridge Inventory in 1986 and the Caltrans Statewide Historic Bridge Survey Update in 2004. In January 2008, the Los Angeles City Council declared the Sixth Street Bridge Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) #905.

FEIR/EIS for the 6th Street Viaduct Demolition and Replacement CHC-2007-4658-HCM-CC1 Page 3 of 7 PROPOSED PROJECT On June 16, 2009, the Bureau of Engineering released a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (DEIR/EA) for the 6th Street Viaduct Seismic Improvement Project. On July 30, 2009, the Cultural Heritage Commission released a letter providing formal comments to the DEIR. In October 2011, the Bureau of Engineering released the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (FEIR/EA) for the 6th Street Viaduct Seismic Improvement Project. On October 19, 2011, the Board of Public Works recommended approval of the FEIR and its preferred alternative. A few days before this hearing, the historic bridges subcommittee of the Cultural Heritage Commission had submitted a letter to the Board of Public Works expressing concern over the scheduling of the item prior to the Cultural Heritage Commissions review. The draft letter below is provided to the Commission for discussion and possible adoption as the Commissions formal position and recommendation to the City Council on the proposed project.

FEIR/EIS for the 6th Street Viaduct Demolition and Replacement CHC-2007-4658-HCM-CC1 Page 4 of 7

ATTACHMENT A.

Los Angeles City Council 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 November 3, 2011 Honorable Councilmembers: I am writing on behalf of the Cultural Heritage Commission and the Department of City Plannings Office of Historic Resources to express our serious concerns about the 6th Street Viaduct Seismic Improvement Project and its intention to demolish and replace the iconic 6th Street Bridge. Completed in 1932, the 6th Street Bridge has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and is designated Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) #905 under the Citys Cultural Heritage Ordinance. One of the Cultural Heritage Commissions primary responsibilities in its capacity as a Mayorappointed decision-making body is overseeing the preservation and safeguarding of the City of Los Angeles more than 1000 Historic-Cultural Monuments (HCMs). The monumental Los Angeles River bridges between Downtown and the San Fernando Valley are some of the Citys most recognizable landmarks, with the 6th Street Bridge easily being the grandest and most signature bridge of the entire grouping. The bridge is recognized throughout the city as a symbol of Los Angeles and is, in fact, one of the most filmed sites in Los Angeles. Recognizing its importance, the Los Angeles City Council declared the 6th Street Bridge a Historic-Cultural Monument in 2008. After careful review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in 2009, the Cultural Heritage Commission submitted substantive comments on the alternatives discussed. The main comments centered on the lack of alternatives that would permit the 6th Street Bridge to retain its HCM designation; lack of faithful and viable reconstruction alternatives; potential cumulative impacts of the bridge program; and, the inadequacy of mitigation measures. Understanding the structural issues with the existing bridge, the staff of the Office of Historic Resources and Cultural Heritage Commissioners worked closely with the Bureau of Engineering, particularly in studying options to address the bridges Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) condition. The Cultural Heritage Commission is disappointed that the project team has selected a preferred alternative that will demolish the 6th Street Bridge and replace it with a new cablesupported bridge of contemporary design. This will result in the irreparable loss of a HistoricCultural Monument and a major blow to the Citys cherished collection of historic Los Angeles River bridges. This is now the second formal communication that the Cultural Heritage Commission has respectfully released to the Los Angeles City Council and its committees regarding the Bureau of Engineerings overall bridge improvement program. The Cultural Heritage Commission has previously expressed concern over the potential of the bridge program to adversely impact the

FEIR/EIS for the 6th Street Viaduct Demolition and Replacement CHC-2007-4658-HCM-CC1 Page 5 of 7

Citys historic Los Angeles River bridges, stripping them of their Historic-Cultural Monument designation, rendering them ineligible as historic resources, and losing a vital part of the Citys built heritage. The irreplaceable loss of the 6th Street Bridge under the proposed alternative would leave a void with the loss of the crown jewel of all the Los Angeles River bridges. The Cultural Heritage Commission does not take lightly the loss of a Historic-Cultural Monument. The City of Los Angeles has not seen an EIR-approved demolition of a Historic-Cultural Monument building or structure for nearly 25 years. It is particularly regrettable that a historic resource under the control of City government itself could attain this unfortunate distinction. This project, along with the cumulative effect of other BOE bridge programs proposed projects, may result in the ongoing loss of HCMs, detrimentally affecting one of the nations largest collection of historically designated bridges. Because of the extraordinary circumstances created by the ASR condition, the Cultural Heritage Commission and OHR staff believes that the project necessitates a new approach in historic preservation for bridges and other public infrastructure that may be impacted by ASR or other structural issues and deficiencies. The 6th Street Bridge appears at the moment to be the first pre-World War II bridge in the nation to be proposed for complete demolition and replacement because of an ASR condition. The Commission greatly appreciates BOEs willingness to work closely with our Commission in exploring the ASR problem. Based on available information provided by BOE, the Commission is now reconciled to the reality that a replacement option may be the only solution to address the ASR condition. However, we believe that a replacement alternative should be done in the spirit of reconstruction, potentially complying with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Reconstruction. Therefore, reconstruction/replication alternatives [Bridge Concepts 1 and 1A] appear to be the only possible options (to borrow the National Registers seven aspects of integrity) in preserving the 6th Street Bridges location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The reconstruction/replication alternatives are also the only alternatives that could accommodate meaningful and physical mitigation, such as retention of the steel arches as partial preservation. The full replacement and reconstruction of a Historic-Cultural Monument has an important precedent. The Hollywood Sign was designated Historic-Cultural Monument #111 in 1972. By the mid-1970s, the sign was rapidly deteriorating with several letter-structures having collapsed. In 1978, the Cultural Heritage Board (the predecessor body to this Commission) approved the entire demolition and reconstruction of the Hollywood Sign, using new construction methods and a slight variation in design from the original. Although todays sign was constructed with allnew materials, the sign has retained its Historic-Cultural Monument status and remains an iconic symbol of Hollywood and Los Angeles. As the Commission has pointed out previously, another significant precedent is the reconstruction of Pasadenas Colorado Street Bridge in 1991-93. The entire deck of the bridge and many other historic features, including spandrel columns, were fully reconstructed, rather than repaired. Nevertheless, the Bridge has retained its listing in the National Register of Historic Places and is a designated landmark in the City of Pasadena. The Cultural Heritage Commission stresses that this approach is not appropriate for all projects dealing with historic resources. The extraordinary concrete conditions caused by the ASR, the fact that the historic resource is a piece of public infrastructure used by pedestrians, bicyclists,

FEIR/EIS for the 6th Street Viaduct Demolition and Replacement CHC-2007-4658-HCM-CC1 Page 6 of 7

and motorists, and the life-safety concerns necessitate this approach. The Sixth Street Bridge would certainly remain an iconic landmark of Los Angeles for many generations, were it not for the ASR concrete condition. The Commission therefore believes it is most appropriate to address this material deterioration through replacement, while taking all steps necessary to retain the iconic design features that have made the bridge a key visual element of the Los Angeles River, Downtown Los Angeles, and Boyle Heights. The Commission would distinguish this recommendation from the concerns we expressed about replication of historic features on the widening of the Spring Street Bridge (Historic-Cultural Monument # 900). In that situation, the question was how to design an appropriate addition, mandated by a perceived need to widen the bridge; historic features were to be removed to accommodate a widening, rather than to address structural deterioration. A seamless replication of historic features on only one side of the Spring Street Bridge leaving one side with original historic material and the other with identical, non-historic material -- would have been contrary to the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation and jeopardized the continued historic eligibility of the bridge, by creating a false sense of its historic evolution. However, in the case of the Sixth Street Bridge, no addition is being proposed, and the Commission is faced with a choice between the loss of the entire resource and options to reconstruct historic features that BOE has demonstrated are deteriorating beyond repair. Reconstruction, in keeping with the separate Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Reconstruction, appears to be the only option that offers some possibility of retaining the local Historic-Cultural Monument eligibility of the bridge. Furthermore, the Sixth Street Bridge is also the centerpiece of an ensemble of remarkable historic bridges along the Los Angeles River. While the bridges are individual Historic-Cultural Monuments, rather than formally designated as a historic district, they do also constitute a de facto district. Consequently, the Council should also consider this important decision through the prism of what constitutes appropriate design within a collection of bridges, and what design would not detract from the historic significance of the bridges, taken collectively. 1) Supports Bridge Concept 1- Main Span Replication Concept 1 (Main Span Replication) is one of five viable bridge concepts carried forward for evaluation, meeting all of the Bureau of Engineerings project goals. This alternative would replicate most elements of the current main span and resurrect original architectural features lost such as the decorative double-piers. Although not specified in the FEIR, the main span replication approach would also be able to accommodate the reintegration of the existing steel arches, a major character-defining feature of the bridge. The role of the reused arches would most likely be decorative and no longer structural. 2) Supports the Abutment to Abutment Replication (1A) with modifications to render the alternative viable. [1A-Modified] Alternative 1A (Replication Abutment to Abutment) was added to the EIR as a response to previous comments submitted by the Cultural Heritage Commission. However, this alternative has been withdrawn from further consideration by the BOE as it would require reconstruction of piers in a railway area with potential right-of-way and easement issues and would appear to be significantly more costly.

FEIR/EIS for the 6th Street Viaduct Demolition and Replacement CHC-2007-4658-HCM-CC1 Page 7 of 7

The Cultural Heritage Commission therefore proposes a modified alternative based on the Abutment to Abutment Replication option that would make it more viable by not pursuing a full reconstruction of the lower deck. Through new construction methods, the area with the right-ofway concerns can be bypassed without the need to reconstruct the piers in their original location. This option could reduce by nearly half the 41 pairs of substructure piers on the Bridge, resulting in reduced costs of materials and construction. Instead of a complete reconstruction, this alternative would result in a 70-80% replication guided by the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Reconstruction. As a partial preservation treatment, the iconic steel arches on the center span would be salvaged and reincorporated back to its original location. Reconstruction of the bridge within more or less the existing alignment and envelope must take into consideration the cost-savings of not requiring private property takings. The proposed alignment for the preferred alternative (3B) would require costly private property takings in the industrial area of Boyle Heights along the eastern approach of the bridge. The widening component of the preferred alternative would also necessitate private property takings in the western section approaches of the Arts District in Downtown. A Secretary of the Interiors Standards-compliant reconstruction alternative that maintains the existing footprint of the 6th Street Bridge should reflect these cost savings and serve as an incentive to maintain the current alignment and width of the bridge. Both of these options are in keeping with the vote of the Community Advisory Committee (CAC), which overwhelmingly voted for a reconstruction/replication alternative and expressed support at several meetings. We urge the Los Angeles City Council to address the concerns raised here by the Cultural Heritage Commission as well as by members of the public, community groups, historic preservation advocates, and local residents. Commission members and the staff of the Office of Historic Resources are available to address any questions or concerns you may have. Thank you for this opportunity. Sincerely, RICHARD BARRON, President Cultural Heritage Commission