Sierra Club Objects : W. Hollywood Defends Plans for Civic Center

Officials said Tuesday that plans for a $25-million civic center at West Hollywood Park will go ahead despite objections from the Sierra Club and other activists who argue that the municipal complex would violate state law and deprive the city of much-needed parkland.

“Parks should be sacrosanct and inviolate,” said Jill Swift, head of the local parks committee of the Angeles chapter of the Sierra Club. “Parks in and of themselves represent something that you just can’t re-create when you have the high population that is affecting the available land in the city.”

She said the 2-year-old city may be inviting a lawsuit by the Sierra Club if it does not set aside funds to buy new parkland elsewhere, as mandated by state law.

“If the newly elected city fathers don’t feel responsible to follow those laws then there will be action taken,” she said. “If West Hollywood cannot afford to go out and buy additional parkland to make up for what will be displaced, then they have no business allowing for anything to go on that parkland. They simply must comply with state law.”

City officials disputed Swift’s claim.

“There have been a number of sections of state law bandied about by various individuals, most of which are not applicable to this situation,” said City Atty. Michael Jenkins, adding that it was premature to comment on the specifics of the case.

“I do not agree with many of the assertions that have been made, to the effect that what the city is doing is illegal or in some way in violation of those statutes,” he said.

“We have obviously looked into this at great depth, and we do not intend to do anything inappropriate,” he said.

City Manager Paul D. Brotzman said, “If we can’t put together a concept that works, then we’ll have to start over, but we think we can put together a concept that works.”

Brotzman said the five architects chosen as finalists in a competition to design the civic center have all been told that it will be critical to keep the same amount of land set aside for recreation--three acres--that is there now.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Ed Edelman, whose district includes West Hollywood, said he wanted to hear from both sides before taking a stand. Edelman’s position is important because the land could revert to the county if West Hollywood is found to have violated the provisions of the deed under which the county handed over much of the land to city control in 1985.

“I would want to see what buildings are located where and what’s left” of the park, Edelman said. “If the city hall is right in the middle of the park, it wouldn’t be a very good thing; it might be a violation of the deed restrictions. But I want to look at the whole plan, to see what they have in mind, to confer with the county counsel before I put myself in a locked position.”

Much of the six-acre parcel on San Vicente Boulevard between Melrose Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard is occupied by an auditorium, library, swimming pool, parking lot and county public works yard.

The final plan is intended to incorporate many of those facilities into the civic center, along with a new fire station, while retaining a softball field, tennis courts and picnic areas.

State law allows for municipal auditoriums, libraries and swimming pools to be built in parks, but Swift said that building municipal offices on the site means that the city must secure parkland elsewhere.

Brotzman said the end result would be a net gain for the city and for park users.

“It’s our feeling that by reconfiguring the entire site through proper design, we can not only develop the civic center at that location but also enhance the usability of the park, and at the minimum retain the same amount of park open space,” Brotzman said.

But attorney Ira Stein, a West Hollywood resident and community activist, said the city may be in legal trouble even if it does retain some open land at the site.

“The parkland there is the entire parcel, not just a certain number of blades of grass,” he said.

“They seem to think that places like the parking lot and the municipal auditorium are not part of the park, and if they use it, they don’t have to replace it (with parkland),” Stein said. “I think it’s clear legally that just because a piece of land isn’t being used as parkland doesn’t mean that it isn’t a park.”