West Hollywood Civic Center Foes Vow New Fight

Opponents of a proposed $25-million civic center in West Hollywood failed to collect enough valid signatures to force a vote on the proposal. But, undaunted, some of them this week pledged to renew their campaign to halt the project.

“We have no intention of giving up, and I think you’re going to see people devoting themselves to getting this issue before the voters in a way that you haven’t before,” said Tom Larkin, co-chairman of the Save Our Parks Alliance.

He and others in the group last month claimed to have more than enough signatures to place on the next municipal ballot in April, 1990, an initiative aimed at preventing the complex from being built in West Hollywood Park.

But an official count by the Los Angeles County registrar’s office, completed last week, showed that of the 2,806 signatures the group submitted, only 1,722--344 less than necessary--were from registered voters who live in West Hollywood.

At least 2,066 valid signatures were needed to qualify the initiative for the ballot, City Clerk Mary Tyson said.

Supporters of the civic center project immediately seized on the latest development as evidence that most West Hollywood residents are in favor of the project.

“If there is such an outpouring of opposition as they’ve claimed all these months, why is it that after six or eight months of trying, they’ve failed so miserably to find such a relatively small number of people who want to see this on the ballot?” Councilman John Heilman asked.

Heilman, whose outspoken support for the civic center plan has made him a favorite target of opponents, referred to opposition leaders as “sore losers” and called on them “to work with us to make (the proposed civic center) the best project anywhere.”

He and other supporters expressed confidence that even if the group succeeds in a second attempt to place the issue on the ballot, voters will overwhelmingly support going ahead with the plan.

Larkin blamed the group’s failure to acquire the needed number of valid signatures on organizational problems. He insisted that “the second time around we’re going to make sure people are more scrupulous in making sure those signing are registered voters.

“We don’t think we’re sore losers at all. . . . All we want is to give people the right to vote on an issue that we think they deserve the right to decide on, and once that happens, we’re convinced a majority won’t go along with (the proposal).”

Of the five City Council members, only Steve Schulte is opposed to the idea of constructing the complex in the park.

Schulte, who has called the plan “the B-1 Bomber of West Hollywood,” said the latest setback “doesn’t prove anything.”

“I’m still very much convinced that there is widespread opposition to spending that kind of money to put up a civic center in sorely needed park space, and I think the people at least deserve the chance to decide what they want,” he said.

Questions Feasibility

However, Teresa Garay, co-chairwoman of the Save Our Parks Alliance, indicated she was having second thoughts about the feasibility of continuing the effort.

Garay, who ran unsuccessfully for City Council last April after raising the civic center as an issue in the campaign, said she was “still trying to make up my mind” whether to continue to take an active part in the opposition.

“My feelings that the park should not be used for the civic center haven’t changed. I’m simply concerned with the feasibility of continuing with the effort at this point. . . . If it looks like we can muster up enough enthusiasm from volunteers who are willing to work at it, that’s another thing,” she said.

City officials, who have budgeted $1.5 million for the civic center in the fiscal year that began July 1, have indicated that the continuing controversy would not paralyze the project.

Larkin and other opponents have insisted that the prospect of a ballot initiative would interfere with West Hollywood’s ability to finance the project, which is one reason they began the initiative drive so far before the election.

However, city officials have said that even if the group succeeds in placing the matter on the April, 1990, ballot, it would not hinder the financing, because the city would not attempt to sell bonds until shortly before the start of construction in mid-1990.

The park, located on San Vicente Boulevard between Melrose Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard, occupies a 6-acre parcel along with an auditorium, library, swimming pool, parking lot and county public works maintenance facility.

The civic center would incorporate many of those facilities, as well as a city hall, and possibly a new fire station, while retaining a softball field, tennis courts and picnic areas.

The design envisions a sprawling collection of low buildings, highlighted by two observation towers and a portico along San Vicente Boulevard.

When opponents complained last year that park space was being sacrificed for civic buildings, the design was amended to eliminate ground-level parking lots in favor of underground parking.

Architects said the changes would help to more than double the space devoted to buildings while increasing open and recreational space by 30%. Opponents have objected to plans for a rooftop tennis court, saying it shouldn’t be considered park space.

Acquiring Land

Last November, the city spent almost $900,000 to acquire a building next to the park that city officials have acknowledged could be torn down for future expansion of the park. The city is negotiating to buy another parcel next to the park for $1.5 million.

“There are really several issues that come together here,” Schulte said. “Some people oppose it because of the proposed location. Others are opposed on strictly financial grounds. And still others have concerns about it as a priority, given other needs the city has. It’s too big a question for people not to be given the chance to vote on it.”

Heilman offered a different view. “The majority (of the City Council) felt that the best approach was to go ahead with the civic center,” he said. “I think most of the public who are well-informed about it know why we made that decision, and support it.”