The 1924 façade of the Old Spaghetti Factory building in Hollywood was demolished more than one year ago, but opponents are still in the midst of challenging the project at the city level.

The façade of the Old Spaghetti Factory was torn down in February, and a zoning administrator has ruled that the demolition permits were improperly issued. (photo by Edwin Folven)

An appeal was filed so that opponents of the Sunset Gordon project, for which the façade was razed, could exhaust their administrative remedies before proceeding with a lawsuit against the developer, CIM Group.

Attorney Robert P. Silverstein filed the lawsuit on behalf of the La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Association, which has challenged the project since its original proposal by Gerdling Edlen in 2007. The association filed the lawsuit in 2008, claiming that the city improperly granted the project variances. CIM Group purchased the property in 2011.

“They clearly violated the law,” Doug Haines, a representative of the neighborhood association, said of the so-called “midnight demolition.” “They violated a law in a very outrageous way.”

On Oct. 8, associate zoning administrator Charlie Rausch ruled that the city’s Department of Building and Safety had violated the conditions of the project approval by issuing the demolition permits. He said the original conditions stated that the façade would be rehabilitated.

However, the developers could remedy the issue by applying for a clarification of the “Q conditions” and modifying the plot plan, Rausch said. He said the developers could have filed a clarification application with the department to show evidence that the building had structural problems. The zoning administrator said CIM Group could change the language in their plan to include demolition instead of rehabilitation, which may require an addendum to the environmental impact report (EIR).

Rausch, who also ruled that the department didn’t err in issuing building permits, said the EIR analyzed both rehabilitation and demolition, but Hollywood Heritage, a preservation group, wanted the façade saved. He said it was not on the city’s list of historic-cultural monuments.

Now, the developers plan to replace the façade, and contractors have left space to do so, Rausch said.

“That’s everything that’s wrong with this city,” Haines said, adding that the city will bend the rules for developers instead of penalizing the companies.

Allowing such a violation without penalties could set a precedent for future building projects, he said. Haines questioned why any company would follow the law if CIM Group, a “huge builder” in Southern California, could disregard the rules.

Rausch said both CIM Group and the opponents could appeal the decision to the area planning commission or the full planning commission. If appealed, a hearing could be held in the next few weeks, he said.

Haines said the neighborhood association has opposed the 23-story project at 5929 Sunset Blvd. from the onset due to the now-defunct Community Redevelopment Agency, Los Angeles (CRA/LA), loaning the developers $9.6 million and concerns that the skyscraper was out of scale with the rest of the community.

During its approval, the project received 17 entitlements. Haines said the project has twice the allowed density and half the required parking. It doesn’t satisfy open space requirements, and is 215 feet higher than zoning allows, he said. Nine of the 17 entitlements were variances, and another one stems from two supergraphic signs incorporated into the project.

Originally, Gerdling Edlen proposed that the $182 million project be purely residential. After securing the CRA/LA funding, the company agreed to include office and retail space. The project eventually died — likely due to the economic downturn and the neighborhood association’s lawsuit — before CIM acquired the project. Now, the project calls for 301 residences, 39,000 square feet of office space, 13,500 square feet of retail space and a public park.

The opponents’ concerns are numerous. Haines said Gerdling Edlen received more than $3.6 million from CRA/LA and the Los Angeles City Council to defend the project in court. He said Gerdling Edlen later defaulted on that loan before purchasing an $11-million property in Venice.

He said the demolition of the façade was even more egregious considering that several public officials warned CIM Group about violating the conditions of the approval. Those warnings only sped up the work, Haines said.

Hollywood Heritage had made an agreement with Gerdling Edlen to preserve the old façade. However, CIM Group couldn’t fulfill the agreement because the building had deteriorated to the point that the company could not preserve some parts of the structure, Christy McAvoy, of Hollywood Heritage, said in a previous interview.

Additionally, the property has been wrapped up in the scandal involving County Assessor John Noguez. According to media reports, property tax consultant Ramin Salari lobbied the assessor’s office to lower the assessed value of the Sunset Gordon property from $14 million to $7.2 million. The property later sold for $21 million. In a previous interview, the assessor’s office claimed the property was re-assessed to $7.2 million because, at the time, it had no entitlements, had changed ownership three times and was affected by the market crash in 2007.

The lawsuit hopes to show that companies cannot simply disregard certain conditions, but it is possible that the court could impose additional requirements, Haines said. He said the court could decide to require additional parking, since the rehabilitation of the Old Spaghetti Factory façade was a factor in allowing fewer parking spaces. The court could also limit the structure’s height, deny its certificate of occupancy, require CIM Group to recirculate the EIR or add mitigations due to the abundance of large projects proposed for the area, he said.

“I think it’s important. It sends a message,” he said of the lawsuit. Haines said he expects to go before the court again in November.

He said the opponents of the project did not exhaust their administrative remedies because the demolition permits were issued after the work had been completed. A spokesman for the department said the permits were issued in February, when the demolition occurred, and finalized in March.

Representatives of CIM Group did respond to a request for comment.