The Department of City Planning hosted a public hearing for the proposed replacement project on March 16, 2022. The Conservancy and other supporters pressed for a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to fully assess preservation alternatives to the planned demolition, including a partial preservation approach. An EIR is required when a historic resource is affected and the City has discretionary review, both of which exist in this case. Anything less than preparation of an EIR is a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Public comments by the Conservancy to the City (March 16, 2022):

“In regards to the off-menu density bonus and conditional use approvals being sought by the applicant through the City Planning Commission, we are not opposed in concept; however, approval requires discretionary review by the City, and directly affects the overall project scope and an existing historic resource, Taix Restaurant building.

While a sustainable communities project exemption (or SCPE) is being considered by the City Council separately, these two approval processes are directly linked and should be treated as a whole by the City.

Despite the City Council’s action regarding the Historic-Cultural Monument process for Taix [limiting the scope to salvage of two exterior signs and a bar top], this project will have a significant impact on an historic resource – i.e. demolishing the historic Taix building, a demonstrated identified historic resource by a preponderance of the evidence already submitted in the City record — thus preventing reliance on a SCPE to avoid CEQA review.

Through these requests for approvals, we caution the City not to pre-commit to a specific project or scope prior to commencing environmental review and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), required by CA CEQA law given there is an adverse, significant impact to a historic resource, the demolition of the historic Taix Restaurant building.

Other historic resources like Taix are being retained through full or partial preservation approaches by integrating compatible, surrounding infill construction. The same is possible here, and an EIR will help demonstrate this by assessing preservation alternatives to the proposed project.”

On January 26, 2022, the Los Angeles City Council voted in favor of the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee’s recommendation to change the scope of the Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) to just two exterior signs and a wood bar top. Following a Brown Act violation lawsuit, PLUM met on January 18 to rehear and rescind its previous vote made on May 4, 2021. Despite objections from the community, and based on amendments proposed by Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell, PLUM voted to uphold the change the scope of the HCM

The result is an HCM designation that is no more than architectural salvage, not including the Taix building itself. This proposal was previously suggested by the owners (Holland Partner Group) of the Taix property and rejected by the Cultural Heritage Commission.

The Council’s final vote and Councilmember O’Farrell’s motion not only dismissed Taix as a historic resource but greatly undermined the City’s HCM program and set a dangerous precedent.

HCM designation is tied to historic buildings and places, not building fragments and salvage. The Conservancy believes this action is problematic on numerous levels for larger preservation efforts throughout Los Angeles.

On Thursday, December 17, 2020, the Cultural Heritage Commission voted in full support for the pending Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) nomination of Taix French Restaurant. The HCM nomination was submitted by the Friends of Taix. Next, it will go to the City’s Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) committee.

In May 2020, the HPG unveiled new project plans that call for the demolition of the existing Taix building. As proposed, a six-story housing development with 170 apartments (86% market rate) and a 220-space parking garage will replace the current building and surface parking lot. Ground-floor retail is offered including a small space where the Taix restaurant operation might reopen.

In response to the proposed project, the Friends of Taix  formed to press for a preservation-based alternative that maintains the Taix building.

The proposal to bring the Taix business back and include it as part of the new development is appreciated and acknowledged, though it is not the same as preserving the existing historic place where people have created and formed longtime memories and associations. It will be a new Taix experience and loss of the current, historic place. Our current understanding also is there is no legal mechanism to ensure this is mandated to occur as part of the development approval process.

Taix is an important legacy business in L.A. The challenge is how to provide new housing without losing the authentic Taix that so many Angelenos know and love—a place they are tied to through personal experiences.

The Conservancy does not think it’s an either/or scenario, such as provide housing or preserve this legacy business building. Through creative design and compromise, both are possible to achieve a result that everyone can celebrate. The proposal to bring the Taix business back and include it as part of the new development is appreciated, though it is not the same as preserving the existing historic place. It will be a new Taix experience and loss of the current, historic place.

We believe there should be a way to design sensitive infill construction in a manner that incorporates the Taix building through meaningful preservation and continued use, whereby the old and new work together in a thoughtful, compatible design. Compromise is likely needed on both sides, through a partial preservation approach and a reduction in scale of the proposed new project.

The Conservancy strongly believes a significant impact will be the result of the proposed project and demolition of the Taix building by the Holland Partner Group. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is necessary in this case to fully assess impacts and possible preservation alternatives that can be employed to address project objectives.

As part of the Conservancy’s advocacy, we asked for the following:

• Pursue preservation alternatives that can achieve a “win-win” outcome, incorporating new housing construction with the existing Taix building, maintaining its eligibility as a historic resource. There are viable options available for achieving both housing and preservation goals. This may require a reduction in the number of market-rate housing units and a partial preservation approach.
• Conduct an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Conservancy strongly believes a significant impact will be the result of the proposed project and demolition of the Taix building by the Holland Partner Group. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is necessary in this case to fully assess impacts and possible preservation alternatives that can be employed to address project objectives.

CEQA “requires public agencies to deny approval of a project with significant adverse effects when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures can substantially lessen such effects.”[1] Reasonable alternatives must be considered “even if they substantially impede the project or are more costly.”[1] Likewise, findings of alternative feasibility or infeasibility must be supported by substantial evidence.[2]