Whether North Long Beach's Atlantic Ave. Theater (5870 Atlantic Ave.), closed for years, is destroyed or reused as part of LB's Redevelopment process will ultimately involve City Hall actions.

Photo source: North Village Center draft EIR

The project submitted to City Hall by the applicant/developer (North Long Beach Partners, LLC, a Los Angeles addressed-entity) would demolish the Theater, offering CA Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] mitigation consisting basically of documenting the building's historic aspects before its demise for future display.

Photo source: North Village Center draft EIR

However the officially circulated draft Environmental Impact Report (written comments received, hearings pending) says the Theater could be saved and reused, with a relatively small reduction in commercial/retail space (36,000 sq ft. to 30,000 sq. ft)...and calls this the superior environmental alternative.

LBReport.com provides extended portions of the draft EIR below...which will become the subject of public hearings and ultimately voted actions.

Thus far, the fate of the Theater -- an Atlantic Ave. icon connecting NLB to points south -- has been treated by other media outlets as mainly part of the developer's planned mixed-use plan spanning both sides of Atlantic Ave. from South St. to 59th St. and from Lime to Linden Aves.

Photo source: North Village Center draft EIR

The proposed project includes up to 61 units of multi-family housing in a mix of row houses, courtyard units, and units built atop ground floor non-residential space; up to 36,000 sq. ft of commercial retail space, including restaurant space, oriented primarily toward Atlantic Avenue; and a public library and community center totaling approximately 30,000 square feet on the eastern side of Atlantic Ave...the side on which the Theater is.

At an October 2009 meeting of the North LB Community Action Group, a city staffer said the west side of the project (not affecting the Theater) would be built first...and indicated that city staff and the developer are having discussions about the eastern (Theater) side.

LBReport.com is interested in knowing your views on demolishing, or adaptively reusing, the Atlantic Theater...and [very important] why you feel as you did. In your response, let us know roughly where you are (general part of LB or beyond)

We also encourage you to spread word of this story to your friends on Facebook and Twitter.

In August 2009, the Press-Telegram told its readers that the "1941 building, with its trademark spire, characteristic pier design and terrazzo floors is an architecturally significant building that will likely be razed" -- a decision that hasn't been made yet -- and didn't quote portions of the draft EIR we consider newsworthy:

...5870-74 Atlantic Avenue. The property was constructed for Ivan C. Hanson in 1940 as the Atlantic Theatre Building. The ground was broken for construction in April 1941 and the building was finished in May 1942. The building was designed by the Los Angeles and Kansas City architectural firm of Carl Heinrich Boller. Shortly after its founding, the firm was expanded to include Robert Otto Boller, and became to be known as Boller Brothers, recognized for their expertise in theater design. Carl Boller relocated to Southern California and in addition to this property, his firm is credited with designs for the Inglewood Theatre (Inglewood, 1922), Ritz Theatre (Long Beach, 1924), Largo Theatre (Watts, 1924), Corona Theater (Corona, 1929), and Stadium Theater (Los Angeles, 1931). The firm also designed theaters in Montrose, Santa Ana, and Covina.

The property at 5870-74 Atlantic Avenue consists of a one and two-story reinforced concrete commercial building and theater with a rectangular plan located on a corner parcel. The primary (western) elevation on Atlantic Avenue consists of a one-story commercial storefront wrapping the corner of 59th Street. The storefront features a band of display windows above a low bulkhead with a shallow projecting canopy above. The upper façade consists of a featureless parapet. The parapet steps upward to the south to meet the two-story western elevation of the theater. The street elevation of the theater is characterized by curved walls forming a deeply inset semi-circular forecourt that features a terrazzo floor. The upper façade features narrow vertical reveals and a projecting marquee. The primary architectural feature of the theater is the tower, which is characterized by stepped vertical fins terminating in an open metal-frame diamond-shaped lighting element set on a hexagonal base. The architectural style of the building is Moderne.

The design integrity of the property is generally good. Apparent alterations include the replacement or alteration of the original theater marquee in 1977 with a marquee that is evidently smaller than the original. A fountain located at the front of the forecourt replaced a freestanding ticket booth. The commercial storefront is somewhat altered, including the removal or enclosure of transom windows over the display windows and the removal of stepped fluted pylons that projected above the top of the parapet. This latter alteration is more significant, as this design element was originally intended to reinforce the verticality of the tower. The integrity of setting for the property is substantially diminished due to the loss of much of the historically related commercial and residential area.

A 2006 Jones & Stokes survey completed for the City of Long Beach Redevelopment Agency, Community Development Department found this property to be potentially eligible for the NRHP as the structure embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (Criterion C). The structure embodies notable characteristics of the Art Deco style and is associated with a nationally recognized master architect of theatre design, Carl Boller. At the time, the City of Long Beach Redevelopment Agency and Community Development

Department staff and the City of Long Beach Cultural Heritage Board reviewed and approved Jones & Stokes’ assessment of 5870-74 Atlantic Avenue.

As to its national bona fides:

This property [5870-74 Atlantic Ave.] appears to be eligible for the NRHP [National Register of Historic Places] under Criterion C as a building designed by the Boller Brothers, recognized for their expertise in theater design, and as a scarce remaining example of monumental commercial architecture of the period.

The integrity of location for this property is intact; it is located on the site of which it was originally constructed. The property’s design criterion is generally good as alterations and replacements have occurred. Examples include the replacement of the original theater marquee in 1977 with a smaller marquee than the original. Also, the fountain located at the front of the forecourt replaced a freestanding ticket booth. Finally, the commercial storefront is somewhat altered, including the removal or enclosure of transom windows over the display windows and the removal of stepped fluted pylons which projected above the top of the parapet. This alteration is the most significant as this design element was originally intended to reinforce the verticality of the tower. The property’s integrity of feeling and association has been diminished due to the loss of much of the historically related commercial and residential area.

This property appears to maintain integrity required for it to be eligible for listing on the NRHP. Therefore, it should be regarded as an historic resource for the purpose of CEQA.

The draft EIR assess the following alternative...which would preserve and reuse the building and "meet most of the objectives of the proposed project":

6.3 HISTORIC RESOURCES PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE

This alternative involves adaptive reuse of the eligible historic properties (5870-74 Atlantic Avenue and 635 South Street). The adaptive reuse program would be conducted consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Land uses would be generally the same as for the proposed project; the site would be designed and programmed around and with the historic structures to result in roughly the same amount of residential and institutional space. Commercial space would be slightly reduced (by 6,000 square feet for a total of 30,000 square feet) as there would be less area available for two-story development (please see Table 6- 1 for the basic characteristics of this alternative). The 635 South Street building would be renovated for commercial space and the Atlantic Theater building would be adapted for reuse either as a portion of the library and community center or for commercial use...This alternative would meet most of the objectives of the proposed project and would avoid the significant impact to historic resources that would result from implementation of the proposed project.

6.3.1 Aesthetics

...[T]he development’s appearance and massing at street level would be similar to the proposed project, although slightly reduced at the locations of the historic structures. Changes to the site would have less visual impact as the two historic structures would be rehabilitated for adaptive reuse. Thus, impacts associated with the change to the visual character of the site would be reduced, and would be less than significant...

6.3.3 Cultural Resources

...The historic Atlantic Theater would be adapted for reuse as the library and community center or for commercial use and 635 South Street would be adaptively reused for commercial space. Therefore, this alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts to historic resources associated with the proposed project. Impacts associated with this alternative would be less than significant and mitigation would not be required.

6.3.7 Land Use and Planning

Impacts related to land use and planning would be reduced for this alternative in comparison with the proposed project. The significant and unavoidable impact related to potential inconsistency with historic resource preservation policies would be avoided, as this alternative would not involve demolition of the historic structures. All other land use and planning impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed project and would be less than significant.

On the proposed project's environment aspects, the draft EIR states:

6.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

The No Project alternative would avoid all of the project’s impacts. Consequently, the No Project alternative is considered environmentally superior. However, the No Project alternative would not fulfill the basic objectives of the project stated in Section 2.0, Project Description. Furthermore, the No Project alternative would not include the benefits associated with redevelopment of the site, including the construction of a community library, commercial hub, and would provide the City with additional housing.

Among the other alternatives being considered, the Historic Resources Preservation alternative would be considered environmentally superior, as it would avoid significant impacts related to historic resources and land use and planning, and would incrementally reduce impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality and other issue areas due to the slight reduction in commercial space. This alternative would generally meet the project objectives, although slightly less commercial space would be constructed.

In comparison, the project submitted for consideration to City Hall by the applicant/developer includes demolishing the Theater with mitigation:

[draft EIR text] The following mitigation measures would apply...to reduce impacts associated with demolition of the structures at 5870-5874 Atlantic Avenue:

CR-1(a) 5870-5874 Atlantic Avenue Recordation Document. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit and in consultation with the Director of Development Services or their designee, an historic preservation professional qualified in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards shall be selected to complete Documentation Reports on the eligible properties to be demolished. The property shall be documented at HABS/HAER Level 2 standards. This recordation document shall be completed and approved by the Director or their designee. The approved document, along with historical background of the properties, shall be submitted to an appropriate repository approved by the Director or their designee.

CR-1(b) 5870-5874 Atlantic Avenue Interpretive Plan. In consultation with the Director of Development Services or their designee, an historic preservation professional qualified in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards shall be selected by the City to prepare an on-site interpretive plan, focusing on the significant historic themes associated with the properties to be demolished and the historical development of North Long Beach. The plan may consist of a public display or other suitable interpretive approaches, as approved by the Director or their designee, and be installed in an appropriate public location within the proposed Library-Community Center building. The interpretive plan shall be completed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed Library-Community Center building, and shall be installed within one year of occupancy of the proposed Library-Community Center building. If the proposed Library-Community Center building is not occupied within two years after the issuance of demolition permits, another suitable temporary or permanent location for the interpretive display shall be determined, subject to the approval of the Director or their designee. The interpretive display shall remain in public view for a minimum of five years, and if removed, appropriately archived.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts relating to the demolition of 5870-74 Atlantic Avenue to the degree feasible. However, outside of preserving the structure, the impacts would be significant and adverse. Therefore, the impact to 58740-74 Atlantic Avenue would be Class I, significant and unavoidable [if all site structures, including the Theater, are demolished]...

The draft EIR describes the process for decisonmakers as follows:

The City of Long Beach General Plan is the primary policy planning document that guides land uses in the City. In order to approve a proposed project, the City Council must find that it is consistent with the Land Use Designation, goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan. As discussed above, the site is split among four General Plan land use designations. Along Atlantic Avenue and South Street they are commercial, Traditional Retail Strip Commercial (8A) and Mixed Retail/Residential Strip (8R), respectively, and along Linden and Lime Avenues they are residential Townhomes (3A) and Mixed Style Homes (2), respectively. In general, the proposed mixed-use project is consistent with this mix of land uses.

However, in order to implement the project as proposed, General Plan and Zoning Code amendments are required and are a part of the request for entitlements. This is to allow the mix of uses together (e.g., residential units over retail space along Atlantic Avenue and South Street; maximum heights of three levels rather than the two allowed under existing zoning; and additional residential density beyond what would be allowed under existing zoning. If the requested General Plan and Zoning Code amendments are approved, the project would be consistent with applicable land use and zoning designations. If the requested amendments are not approved, the project would be required to be revised to comply with existing General Plan and Zoning Code standards.

...[T]he proposed project parking does not meet City code requirements. However, the applicant has requested an Administrative Use Permit for shared use of less than the Code required number of parking spaces...

The draft EIR also includes this comparison matrix:

Source: North Village Center draft EIR

The full project requires certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Disposition and Development agreements by the non-elected Redevelopment Agency board ); Site Plan Review and an Administrative Use Permit (for shared parking) by the non-elected Planning Commission; and a General Plan Amendment and Zone Code amendment by the City Council (and some of the actions are appealable within City Hall).

The draft EIR states, "The ultimate determination of whether the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code lies with the decision-making bodies (Planning Commission and City Council)..."

But the exact point at which City Hall might try to demolish the Theater isn't yet clear.

Developing...with further to follow on LBReport.com.

Follow LBReport.com w/

Twitter

RSS

Facebook