Basin Site Best Arts Park Choice

Your July 14 editorial opposing the proposed site for Arts Park L.A. (“Site Spoils Plan for Arts Park”) suggested that proponents of the project were single-minded in their pursuit of the Sepulveda Basin site, and that it was time to look for another location.

The Times has clearly shown in this editorial that it does not understand the Arts Park project and the history of the effort to build it.

The 1981 Sepulveda Basin Master Plan identified approximately 60 acres of land near Victory and Balboa boulevards for arts and arts-related recreational activity. It should be understood that the site’s availability preceded the development of the plan. Setting aside this land for arts / cultural activities was supported by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as owners of the basin, the city Recreation and Parks Department as master lessees of the property, and the Arts Park supporters, formed in 1981 as the Cultural Foundation.

After numerous false starts, the Cultural Foundation finally completed an international design competition in 1989 and then began the environmental impact report / environmental impact statement process.

As a major part of that process, we are required to examine alternative sites and projects. We have not been able to identify any sites in the Valley that either wouldn’t cost a prohibitive amount or aren’t already committed to other projects. In fact, the July 1996 Valley Business Journal reported that “virtually every available site in excess of three acres in the San Fernando Valley is either under contract or in negotiation.” We have analyzed more than 20 sites in the Valley and have concluded that the basin site is the most feasible.

I should point out that the Orange County Performing Arts Center became feasible only when the Segerstrom family donated more than $7 million worth of land. The Los Angeles Music Center became feasible when Los Angeles County gave the project the land. Thousand Oaks Performing Arts Center became a reality when the city of Thousand Oaks issued bonds and purchased land.

If we are given property elsewhere in the Valley, we will certainly consider it as an alternative. To say that we have been single-minded in sticking with the Sepulveda Basin site overlooks 16 years of effort and money dedicated to the approval processes--and to trying to find another site.

The Sepulveda Basin site is preferred because:

* The site was so designated in the Basin Master Plan of 1981.

* The land is essentially free, and the cost of buying land elsewhere would make the project prohibitively expensive.

* Alternative sites are not available.

* The site is ideally located near the center of the San Fernando Valley.

The Valley needs Arts Park as the cultural centerpiece of a viable, separate community. Much smaller communities, including Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Eugene, Ore., and Palm Springs and Cerritos, have major theaters bringing in artists such as Luciano Pavarotti and Mikhail Baryshnikov, symphony orchestras, Broadway shows and other major cultural attractions. The theaters have put these cities on the map and created a strong sense of pride in the community. For the Valley to have one identity, we need a major cultural center around which to rally.

Despite a great variety of small theaters and an extremely talented population, the Valley has no major theaters, no major museums, no central art gallery, no children’s arts center or museum, and no significant place for local artists to display their works. All this would be provided by Arts Park.

We cannot depend on the cultural attractions of the Music Center in downtown Los Angeles. We don’t want to be the deprived suburb of Los Angeles any more. Some say the Thousand Oaks theater fills the need now. Shall we trade being a suburb of Los Angeles for being a suburb of Thousand Oaks? No. The Valley needs its own cultural center, and we need it now. The Sepulveda Basin is the most feasible site; it gives us the ideal location for the Valley’s cultural heart.