|
NEWS 06-14-07 Save Griffith Park. Let it heal. Keep it real. These words represent the hope that something good will come from the devastating fire of May 8/9 that consumed more than one-quarter of Griffith Park's natural area. The disaster sparked the sudden recognition that the City had almost lost a precious resource. Will it be translated into more enlightened stewardship of the Park? As noted in our last update, at the City's May 23rd Griffith Park Fire Recovery Plan Meeting, Rec & Parks General Manager Jon Kirk Mukri referred to the Park as an "Urban Wilderness.'' After two years of Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group deliberations in which the Park's Urban Wilderness identity has been discussed, crafted and honed, and after receiving more than 11,000 petitions requesting that the Park be designated an Urban Wilderness and thousands of public comments, e-mails and letters requesting that its remaining natural, green and open spaces be preserved, the Department of Rec & Parks not only seems comfortable with the concept, but has come to embrace it. Would that the same could be said for Councilmember LaBonge, in whose Fourth District the Park resides. At the June 13th meeting of the City Council's Arts, Parks, Health & Aging Committee chaired by LaBonge, the Councilmember became agitated at hearing the term "Urban Wilderness." He announced that he still did not understand what an Urban Wilderness was and grilled Rec & Parks Assistant General Manager Kevin Regan about the term's definition. When told during public comment that the City already had a designated Urban Wilderness in Debs Park, fostered by the community and approved by the Rec & Parks Commission and City Council, he changed the subject. (To read about Debs Park go to here.) It is vital that the Councilmember understand and endorse the Urban Wilderness designation for Griffith Park. The Urban Wilderness concept is not an amorphous idea, but a highly successful reality right here in Los Angeles. You can help him by sending him an email explaining what an Urban Wilderness is, and telling him why it is so important to you that Griffith Park be designated as one. Councilman LaBonge can be reached at councilmember.labonge@lacity.org. Save Griffith Park. Let it heal. Keep it real. If you would like a free bumper sticker for your car or window, just click on the Bumper Sticker link on the left. To download and sign the Urban Wilderness Petition, click on the Petition link. 05-24-07 The fire of May 8/9, 2007 changed the Park's natural landscape. Will it change the public and political perception of its core identity as well? On May 23rd the Department of Recreation and Parks and Councilmember Tom LaBonge of District 4, held a joint meeting at Griffith Park's 500-seat Friendship Auditorium to present information on the Griffith Park Fire Recovery Plan currently a-borning. The meeting was a blend of solid fact and theatre, with the former being provided by Rec & Parks. The capacity crowd gave a lengthy standing ovation to the fire fighters, park rangers, police and public safety officers present, who had earned their admiration by wielding themselves into an extraordinarily effective unit to fight the fire and maintain peace and calm. Thanks to them, no human lives were lost, no park structures or homes destroyed. Rec & Parks' General Manager and staff broke down the destruction to the 850 acre burned area. The majority of its Mixed Chaparral and Mixed Shrub plant communities were destroyed and the oaks, sycamores and other woodland communities within it also suffered significant damages. He outlined a three-phase process for recovery. A task force composed of multiple public agencies has been convened to implement the plan. Whether or not the City will retain degreed and credentialed consultants -- naturalists, botanists, fire ecologists -- to put the process on the highest scientific footing is not yet known, but a UCLA professor rose to the microphone and offered his services and those of his colleagues in this regard. For the record, Rec & Parks' General Manager, Jon Kirk Mukri referred to Griffith Park as an "Urban Wilderness" three times during his presentation -- the first time that a high-level City official has characterized the Park this way. During Q&A, time was spent justifying keeping the burned area closed for the sake of both human safety and ecosystem recovery. Some members of the public counseled going slow, others demanded immediate access. Download the preliminary fire plan (the plan to make a plan) distributed at the meeting by the Department of Recreation and Parks. Visit a new Rec and Parks web site that lists current Park openings and closures. Read an L.A. Weekly article on Griffith Park's future. 05-11-07 Three days ago, the Los Angeles Fire Department and many other civic agencies fought valiantly to save Griffith Park from total destruction by a wildfire that raged out of control. The Park’s built facilities and landmarks were saved. The residences abutting the Park came through unharmed. Nevertheless, 25% of the Park’s natural area was destroyed and today, much of its formerly green space resembles a lunar landscape. What will happen to the animals who lost their homes? How will the Park be re-greened? How should we respond to this ecological disaster? Click here to hear the Wednesday, May 9th edition of Warren Olney’s “Which Way L.A.?” on radio KCRW. Mr. Olney’s guests, wildlife expert Greg Randall with L.A.’s Department of Animal Services, fire expert Richard Minnich, Professor of Earth Sciences at UC Riverside, and Griffith Park advocate, Bernadette Soter, with the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council, discuss how the City and its residents should respond to this event. While some fire ecologists and chaparral experts believe that Griffith Park’s wildlands will restore themselves without human assistance, this morning’s L.A. Times reports that the Recreation and Parks Department will receive $50 million to reseed and reforest it. Once these emergency measures are accomplished, Recreation and Parks will hopefully change its thinking and intelligently plan for the Park’s future. The Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group has, for the past two years, attempted to steer Recreation and Parks towards managing the Park in a direction more attuned to protecting and preserving it, replacing the current bent toward development and “revenue enhancement.” We are at a serious juncture. The Park is wounded. The $50 million is the exception to the year-in and year-out budget cuts the Department has struggled with. The City must allocate permanent funding toward saving, protecting, and preserving Griffith Park. Saving Griffith Park means working together to ensure that response to this tragic fire remains focused on recovery and restoration, not more concrete. The Griffith Park fire and its aftermath will be discussed at the following public meetings. This site will post more as they are added: Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council Board Meeting Hollywood United Neighborhood Council (HUNC) Parks, River and Open Space Committee (PROS) 04-11-07 "CITY-SANCTIONED TRAFFIC JAM ADDING TO GLOBAL WARMING" That's the headline on Steve Hymon's article about the DWP's annual Holiday Festival of Lights in Griffith Park, which appeared in the L.A. Times California section, Monday April 9th. The article references the City's and the DWP's lip-service addressing of global warming, and goes on to describe the DWP's recalcitrance at making any kind of meaningful changes whatsoever to the festival, where thousands of lumbering SUV's idle for 90 minutes and more waiting for the chance to see illuminated message displays such as "Greetings from the Los Angeles Airport." The Festival's chief booster and apologist, Councilman Tom LaBonge, claims that it's okay for all those cars to idle, because they're only a few hundred yards from the Golden State Freeway. PUCK'S GRIFFITH OBSERVATORY DESTINATION RESTAURANT CLOSER TO REALITY Wolfgang Puck Catering is moving ever-closer to obtaining its liquor zoning variance as it wields its power and connections to turn Griffith Observatory into L.A.'s newest high-end destination. Many community organizations have voiced their disapproval of the plans to close off parts of the Observatory to the public when some private catered "events" take place. They have questioned the wisdom of setting no written limits on the number of "events" that may be held. But the Department of Recreation and Parks seems hell-bent on turning the Observatory into (as one Department of Recreation and Parks Assistant General Manager called it) a "rental facility." Our elected representatives are ignoring public sentiment, painting those who question the wisdom of turning an astronomical museum into a "rental facility" as NIMBY. For more information, visit Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council, or The Oaks Homeowners Association. 1-23-07 We're receiving a lot of comment about a story in this week's City Beat that reports on the dilemma facing Griffith Park. "Colonel Griffith may have given the Park to all the people of Los Angeles, but by some twist it has become the property of just one: Tom LaBonge," says one correspondent. "How ironic that Tom calls it 'everybody's park.' Before, councilmembers balanced their prerogatives, people's desires and the advice of staff, but LaBonge is acting like 'the decider' and his decision, that the Park should be made over into a more urban and commercial place, is right there within the covers of the Draft Master Plan." Another preservationist bristles at being called anti-activity, anti-enhancements or anti-access, all of which are narrowly defined as what the Councilmember wants. "Tom implies that we are NIMBY. Doesn't he know that almost 11,000 people -- most from outside the Park's vicinity -- have signed the Griffith Park Urban Wilderness Petition?" "Hello Good Friends," begins another message. "I am going to start sending him (LaBonge) weekly postcards to remind him that "it's not about you -- it's about all of us and the majority do not want the park to be developed." Finally, a writer who fears that the City's last great natural open space is on its way to losing its soul, assures us that there is a theme park in its future. Like Walt Disney did, LaBonge comes to the Park and stares out at its green, open spaces. Like the mogul he visualizes something different, although he's quick to say Griffith Park "is not Disneyland." No. It's "Tommyland." Click on this link to read the full story. 1-01-2007 Happy New Year to all who love Griffith Park! 2006 was an extraordinary year for the thousands of people working to preserve this historic vestige of natural Los Angeles. Thanks to their efforts, those seeking to develop and commercialize this precious resource have been kept at bay…so far. Here are a few of the year's highlights…
Stay tuned…2007 will be interesting. The Save Griffith Park Coalition wishes to thank everyone who took the time in 2006 to attend a Griffith Park Draft Master Plan Working Group meeting or participate in their own organization's preservation efforts, meetings, write letters and file comments with the City, and otherwise spread the word that the Park is at risk. Thanks to everyone who circulated and signed the Griffith Park Urban Wilderness Petition, and especially to those merchants who featured it in their restaurants and stores. Let's continue to work together in 2007 to Save Griffith Park. 11-22-06 The City has finally produced confirmation that the Central Service Yard (between 31 and 52 acres), just across the LA River in Atwater Village, is really, and historically has always been, a part of Griffith Park. Currently, it contains a sprawl of Rec & Park offices, maintenance and storage areas, carpentry and paint shops, vehicle maintenance centers and other we-don't-know-where-to-put-it temporary buildings for the parks as well as other City departments. The Working Group will discuss the potential of consolidating these etceteras on one part of the parcel and returning the rest of this acreage to its original, dedicated use -- public parkland alongside the river. What a beautiful idea. 10-05-06 URBAN WILDERNESS PETITIONS PASS 10,000 MARK Congratulations to everyone involved in this aspect of the citywide push to protect and preserve Griffith Park! If you would like to help circulate petitions at an upcoming event or gathering, contact this site, and we will provide you with 100 petition forms plus how-to instructions. If you own a business with walk-in customers, we can provide you with a self-service 100-petition binder that you can display on your counter. When it is filled, let us know, and we’ll pick it up from you. 8-12-06 ZOO AND AUTRY ADDRESS MASTER PLAN WORKING GROUP Griffith Park, the City’s last great green and open space, is an island of critical natural habitat. The Park’s native plants and animals have proven adaptable, somehow surviving its rancho days and persisting miraculously into the 21st Century. Its species have figured out how to share the Park with its human users. They shelter, graze and hunt on its picnic areas and golf courses and have devised ways to migrate through it safely. But now the question looms: how much longer can they hold out if the massive development proposed in the Melendrez Draft of the Master Plan should comes to fruition? This is why it is important for the public to know if the sprawling Los Angeles Zoo or the expanding Autry National Center, each with their own separate Master Plans, have territorial designs on the Park. Monday night, August 7th, Zoo Director John Lewis said that the Zoo does not. He disavowed the verbiage in the Melendrez Draft calling for the demolition of a portion of Wilson-Harding Golf Course adjacent to the Zoo (See pages 6-16 and 6-19) and said that its new multi-million dollar, 3-acre elephant enclosure will be constructed in the Zoo’s center, not on its fringes. Alas, during Q&A no one asked him where extra space would be found should California AB3027, a bill greatly enlarging the minimum acreage required for zoo elephants, be enacted. Would the Zoo ship its two remaining elephants to the elephant preserve that has offered to take them? Or would it claim it was “forced” to enlarge its footprint to build a bigger exhibit—in the process displacing native species in a functioning habitat with captive exotics in an artificial environment? The L.A. Zoo’s mission, “Nurture Wildlife and Enhance the Human Experience,” suggests that the needs of the “wild” should come first in their calculations. But golfers and the wild creatures who inhabit Wilson-Harding shouldn’t breathe easy yet. Lewis’s presentation of sketches for the Zoo’s parking lot redesign, revealed a plan to add more trees to existing surface lot and repave it with an environmentally sound, water permeable material. Someone mentioned that in addition to the water-recapturing benefits this would diminish the “heat island” effect that comes with concrete and asphalt. There was no hint of the Zoo Parking Structures proposed in the Melendrez Draft, (see pages 5-17, 5-27, 6-18; figures 5.1, 5.7, 5.11, 6.6b), which raises the question: whose idea were they anyway? Like John Lewis, Autry National Center Director John Gray told the Working Group that the Autry would remain in its footprint, expanding back towards the freeway and forward into its parking lot but not impacting its lawn. How much bulk will be added is still unknown since no conceptual plans were shared at the meeting. By way of background, the Autry’s impetus for expansion is its recent takeover of the troubled Southwest Museum in Highland Park and its decision to move the Southwest’s priceless collection of Native American artifacts to its Griffith Park location. L.A. preservationists and neighbors of the Southwest Museum maintain that since the Autry is dedicated to the preservation of the West, it should value the Southwest Museum’s historic contributions to the cultural fabric of Los Angeles. They say that, instead of abandoning it, the younger institution should take steps to ensure that the 92 year old museum maintains its role. The Autry, however, takes a Darwinian view: Gray told the Working Group that the Center considers the Southwest Museum, “a failure.” Yet, ironically, the Autry National Center is not wholly self-sustaining. It came into existence and continues to thrive thanks to City support. It is situated on 6 acres of formerly public parkland in Griffith Park leased to it in 1988 for $1 a year. This ongoing subsidy is certainly a factor in its “success.” And the marquee reason why the public has an interest in, and should play a substantive role, in the development of the Autry National Center Master Plan. For more information about the Zoo, see: www.lazoo.org For more information about the Autry, see: www.autrynationalcenter.org For more information about the Friends of the Southwest Museum Coalition, see: www.friendsofthesouthwestmuseum.com 7-30-06 GRIFFITH PARK URBAN WILDERNESS PETITIONS APPROACHING 10,000 Perhaps the reason why the City continues to make only feeble attempts to let the public know there is a Griffith Park Master Plan process in the works, is the overwhelming opposition to the current Draft, as expressed in the 2500 public comments that have been filed so far with Rec and Parks. The comments come from park-lovers who, by word of mouth and dint of persistence, find out that the Draft, with its multiple proposals to develop and commercialize the Park, exists. They oppose its urbanization schemes and support an opposite vision for the future: almost 10,000 park-lovers from more than 300 zip codes have signed the Griffith Park Urban Wilderness Petition, directing the City to preserve the Park and ALL of its natural, green and open spaces. 5-20-06 WHO WILL DEFINE GRIFFITH PARK’S URBAN WILDERNESS? KEY CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASKS THIS QUESTION. On May 10, 2006 the Arts, Parks, Health & Aging Committee of the L.A. City Council considered a lengthy agenda featuring multiple Griffith Park issues. In his report on the Griffith Park Master Plan process, Recreation and Parks Department Asst General Manager Kevin Regan, told Councilmember Tom LaBonge (the only committee member attending) that his department was working towards a definition of a Griffith Park Urban Wilderness, saying that perhaps any area that’s been graded, has a building on it, or features a road should be excluded from protection. This is problematic because signers of the Urban Wilderness Petition have made themselves clear: ALL of the Park’s green, natural and open spaces must be preserved from development and commercialization. Keep the picnic grounds green and open to the hundreds of thousands of families who use them; keep the golf courses green and open for the recreationists who use them. And let those of us who don’t picnic or golf (human and animal) continue to reap the benefits of their green space, oxygen producing trees, and their function as important habitat and wildlife corridors. As for Regan’s ideas, the Park is criss-crossed with fire roads, hiking/equestrian trails, and former auto roads; it features an extensive manmade drainage system, a fire suppression system, and even a helipad; it contains a topped off landfill that the City promised would be returned to a natural state and that has already been colonized by the Park’s plants and animals. All of these aspects of the Park have been graded. Some even feature “buildings,” like restrooms or water tanks. And, of course, wherever you are in Griffith Park you’re near a path or a road. According to this criteria then, the entire Park can be bulldozed! Fortunately, Rec and Park’s General Manager Jon Mukri spoke up and said that the Urban Wilderness should be defined by the community. What a perfect idea! 4-20-06 L.A.’s OTHER URBAN WILDERNESS PARK IS A SUCCESS WITH KIDS Tune in Monday, April 24 at 6:00 p.m. to KCET-TV Los Angeles, as Huell Howser visits Debs Park, one of California’s Golden Parks. Located in the Highland Park/Monterey Hills area, Debs Park is the location of the City of L.A.’s first “urban wilderness,” and is the inspiration for the urban wilderness initiative for Griffith Park. Howser’s tour will focus on Debs Park’s Audubon Center, which exposes City children to the natural world and encourages their free play and environmental discovery. SIGNERS OF THE URBAN WILDERNESS PETITION TOP 8000 In February, Marshall High School student volunteers tabulated copies of the 5916 petitions that Save Griffith Park had already forwarded to the Department of Recreation & Parks (note that this accounts for more than 70% of the 8100 signed petitions which the Department of Recreation & Parks has acknowledged receiving). The students found that roughly 25% of the signators live within the 90027 zip code adjacent to the Park, while the remaining three-quarters were from 312 other California zip codes, as well as twenty other states and twelve foreign countries. This points out how invalid is the “NIMBY” spin that pro-development officials resort to as they continue to ignore and dismiss the public’s sentiments citywide. MASTER PLAN INFO NOW BURIED IN RAP WEB SITE Speaking of dismissing public input, the City has quietly eliminated any mention of the Master Plan from the home page of the Recreation & Parks Department’s web site. So, let’s say you are an interested member of the general public, and you want to know about the Master Plan. Read carefully. First you navigate through the Department’s “Directory of Services” page. After finding and entering the “Griffith Park” page, you must navigate your way to the Master Plan content files. There, you click on “Griffith Park Master Plan, Draft 2005, Low Resolution.” Once there, you’ll see a “Feedback Form” link. But the joke’s on you – it’s inactive. There is however, another link to “email comments,” so you can get something over the transom if you’re persistent. Do you want to know when the next meeting takes place? Return to the “Griffith Park Master Plan” page and click on “Meeting Summaries and Agendas,” where you’ll find that the next meeting will be held on April 3rd, three weeks ago. RAP maintains that it is trying to keep the public informed, but they don’t have the money or manpower. But you can be sure that when the City unveils the next version of the Plan, and it is again met with disapproval, they’ll piously tell the public that it has already had its chance to voice opinions. You may remember that City Controller Laura Chick’s January audit of the Department of Recreation & Parks concluded that the Department was not responsive to the community. We would go further and say that the Department does not want to hear from the community at all. Look in the White Pages under “Government, City of Los Angeles.” Note all the other departments and phone numbers listed. Now try to find “Recreation & Parks.” It isn’t in the phone book. CITY COUNCIL APPROVES ELEPHANT “EXHIBIT” In the face of opposition from animal rights groups which contend that elephants need enormous amounts of space; despite the fact that the City is in a fiscal “crisis,” with no money to hire police, fix potholes, and keep its parks green; despite the fact that the Los Angeles Zoo is bound by ordinance not to expand its footprint; and despite the fact that the Master Plan process is ongoing, the City Council voted 13 to 2 to spend $39 million on a pitiful 3-acre elephant exhibit where we can all watch the Zoo’s remaining elephants while away their remaining years in boredom and ill health. The alternative? Ship them to a 100+ acre preserve – COST PAID FOR BY ELEPHANT ADVOCATES – where they can roam free. If new elephant exhibits are what our precious recreation tax dollars are being diverted to subsidize, it’s no wonder that the Master Plan draft is filled with schemes to charge people to use Griffith Park. 1-12-06 We suspect that the Melendrez presentation at the January 9th Griffith Park Draft Master Plan Working Group meeting did not turn out the way RAP envisioned. Instead, those of us present learned that the consultants had little meaningful experience in planning for a major park, had not studied user needs or reached out to the public after the initial workshops, and had no control over what made it into the Draft released on March 30th, (quote: "It is up to the Councilman."). We also learned that there was a six month gap between their completion of the Draft slugged "Second Draft, October 2004" and its unveiling. No one could account for this delay. No one could explain why a first draft had preceded the document released to the public. We learned that: 1. The consultants were out of their league in accepting the assignment and by their own admission, were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the project. The closest they had come previously to planning for a large park was their partial involvement with Exposition Park. In terms of planning, Exposition is a train wreck. Its grounds have been nearly obliterated by a jumble of facilities -- each fine on its own -- but their accretion over the years has eaten away the park itself. Trees and open space have become an afterthought, which is exactly what will happen to Griffith Park if the public doesn't regain control of its future. 2. The consultants said that the Master Plan development project budget of $400,000 was too low to finance ongoing outreach to the public. Many sitting in the audience and on the Working Group panel, however, knew that during the almost two years that the Draft was being compiled, they had endeavored to place their time and knowledge at the consultants' disposal and been denied. Even if the price of a return call was too high, RAP's paid staff could have met with community groups and passed on their input. Nevertheless, on the Draft's title pages, numerous community groups are listed as having "assisted" in its preparation, when both the consultants and RAP know this is not the case. 3. The consultants said that the parameters of their engagement were defined so narrowly as to make it impossible to develop a plan worthy of the Park. We were told, among other things, that no needs assessment was conducted at any level and that they were specifically told not to review, factor in, or on any level attempt to integrate their work with the five completed or pending master plan projects involving the five major venues located in the Park. Before moving on, it should be noted that in Fall 2004 Cal State University at Northridge conducted a survey of Griffith Park recreational users whose findings affirmed the consensus in favor of preserving and greening the Park that arose from the June 2003 Master Plan public workshops. This study was not used in preparing the Draft. The presentation on January 9th did not dispel the clouds of mistrust surrounding the Draft. Perhaps that is why Councilmember LaBonge has precipitously introduced two Motions regarding the Working Group and the public's Urban Wilderness initiative that could possibly impact the progress being made: the latter will empower RAP, not the public, to define the protected areas in the Park. They will be presented at a Special Meeting of The Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee of the City Council on Tuesday morning at 8:30 a.m. and it would be wise to be there. See the Meetings page on this site for more details. 1-06-06 Breaking news...City Controller Laura Chick's just-released second audit of the Recreation and Parks Department reveals shameful disparities in provisions for recreation among the City's rich and poor. It also finds that the Department is detached from the public, does not ask communities what they want, and does not conduct needs assessments before making decisions. The Griffith Park Draft Master Plan is a textbook example of the rot at the core. It advocates spending multi-millions to re-invent a Park that is already rich in recreational resources -- even though the public is happy with the Park as it is! It was developed in defiance of the public's expressed wishes. Instead of heeding the citizenry's hugely negative reaction to the plan, the Department is now furiously engaged in salvaging the document, putting on a public show of community participation while marginalizing and trivializing the process and the people. It's time for reform. 1-5-06 Thank you to the astute reader of the Draft who pointed out that the document proposes the construction of eight multi-level parking structures in Griffith Park -- not six as previously reported on the home page of this site (the correction has been made). Since Rec and Park's General Manager calls the $2 million a year netted by the parking garage he runs at Pershing Square downtown "a success story," perhaps he's looking forward to the day when he can net $16 million a year by eliminating free parking at Griffith Park and replacing it with paid. The GM's Pershing Square haul is a significant part of the $21.5 million secret surplus uncovered by City Controller Laura Chick in her recent audit of Rec and Parks, an amount equivalent to 15% the Department's annual budget. Since there is no parking shortage in Griffith Park and no need to generate money to maintain it (as the Department claimed before the $21.5 million fund was revealed), we must wonder who could possibly benefit from this needless and massive construction proposal? (See news of 12-16-05). 12-16-05 Was the "Come and get it!" bell rung this morning? Or was it just a crazy coincidence? At 7:30 a.m., the authors of the Griffith Park Master Plan Draft presented their opus to an audience of their peers at a $50 a plate breakfast in the Regency Club in Westwood. The event, a self-described "neutral forum," was hosted by the Westside Urban Forum, an elite professional association whose members include the biggest real estate developers and contractors, and their service providers in Los Angeles. Also banging the triangle at this penthouse chuckwagon were Jon Kirk Mukri and Kevin Regan, the General Manager and Assistant General Manager of the Recreation and Parks Department. The Master Plan consultants, of course, applied the standard NIMBY spin to the citywide opposition to the Draft. Then Rec and Park's Assistant General Manager did some spinning of his own, claiming that his Department and Councilmember Tom LaBonge had decided, after the Draft was released, to create a public Working Group to bring the community into the process. Not so. The Working Group was the brainchild of a public appalled at the secretive conduct of the Master Plan process and the resultant Draft and was agreed to by these officials only after three months of intensive pressure. Before the event ended, a letter from Tom LaBonge explaining his position to his constituents was read. This masterpiece of evasion sidesteps many of the Draft's problems, and using omission and carefully qualified phrasing leaves the door open for aerial trams, upscale destination restaurants, multi-level parking structures and the gradual development of the remaining natural, green and open spaces in the Park. 12-07-05 We are sad to report the death of one of Griffith Park's most distinguished protectors. Former Los Angeles City Councilmember Marvin Braude, preserver of open space in the Santa Monica Mountains and father of the Venice beach bike path, died on December 7, 2005. Braude served on the City Council from 1965 until 1997 where he was considered a visionary: it is thanks to him that we can still look up and see undeveloped areas of the mountains surrounding Los Angeles. In 1968, the last time Griffith Park was under siege by developers, Braude urged the Recreation and Parks Commission to reject the "garish commercial developments" being pressed on them, saying that their establishment would come "at the expense of future generations who will be denied the opportunity to see what this beautiful land was like before we poured concrete all over it." Thanks in part to Marvin Braude's leadership, the proposals to destroy Griffith Park were defeated. We honor his memory and bid him farewell with regret. 12-06-05 At the December 5th Working Group meeting, held before a standing-room-only audience, the panel was thanked and congratulated by Kevin Regan of Recreation & Parks for all of the productive work they had done so far. However, he also announced that although the Working Group was creating a useful document, they were mistaken in the belief that their rewrite of the Master Plan would constitute any kind of final draft. On the contrary, they were told that the Melendrez draft contained “much useful information” that just couldn’t be tossed out. When asked repeatedly by Working Group panel members exactly what would happen once they had completed their rewrite, Regan finally said that money would need to be found for consultants or for a City agency to draw up a new master plan, using materials created by the Working Group along with the original, discredited Melendrez draft! Regan refused to rule out the Melendrez Group rewriting the plan, saying they had just as much right as any other company to respond to a City RFP -- which would lead one to conclude that the Working Group could spend many months writing a plan that emphasizes “park” over “profits,” and then the Melendrez Group (or another) could still write a final plan complete with hotels and restaurants and “public-private” partnerships. So, your continued attendance –- and public comments –- at Working Group meetings is vital. The next one will be on January 9th at the Griffith Park Ranger Station, 4730 Crystal Springs Drive, 6:30 p.m. 11-30-05: Melendrez Presents “Master Plan” to American Institute of Architects Yesterday, Melani Smith and Deborah Murphy of Melendrez presented the draft master plan to the American Institute of Architects (see screen grab from the AIA web site). It should be noted that: 1) Melendrez has positioned their work as a “Master Plan,” not as a “Draft Master Plan,” which it most certainly is. 2) They characterize the document as, “the most innovative and exciting master plan to date for a southern California park.” They did not mention that it is thoroughly reviled by virtually everybody who has set eyes on it. 3) Instead, the opposition to the document is discounted as coming from, “neighborhood associations who don’t like the idea of activity in their back yard.” Apparently Melendrez is unaware of the more than 7000 signed petitions received by Rec & Parks from more than 275 Zip codes, all expressing opposition to the draft master plan.10-12-05: At the October 11th meeting of the Griffith Park Master Plan Community Advisory Panel (Working Group), members presented draft language of a new Vision and Goals Statement from which would come a Master Plan based on preservationist principles. The new Vision recommends that the Park be declared an Urban Wilderness, the City’s largest remaining green, natural and open space which is that much more valuable because it exists in a dense metropolis. The proposed Vision statement directs the Recreation and Parks Department to consider the impact its decisions about maintenance, facilities and events will have on the Park’s indigenous animals and plants and historic features. Many group members expressed dismay at the Recreation and Parks Department’s announcement of the sudden removal from their responsibilities of park managers who had been cooperating with the community in its quest to revise the Master Plan Draft. “Park Management,” a chapter in the Draft that sets forth a number of management scenarios, was pre-empted by this abrupt and anti-democratic move. By pre-empting the public’s opportunity to weigh in on how they would like to see Griffith Park managed, the Recreation and Parks Department has demonstrated again that it is more concerned with pleasing City Hall insiders than the public. 09-25-05: Sierra Club Opposes Master Plan The Executive Committee of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club voted unanimously to oppose the Griffith Park draft master plan. The Angeles Chapter includes over 55,000 members. The Executive Committee is the highest decision-making authority within the Angeles Chapter. The exact wording of the motion is "The Master Plan for Griffith Park, titled 'Second Draft, October 2004' is opposed by the Sierra Club." 09-17-05: Our grass roots effort is getting noticed Councilman Tom LaBonge has gone on record recently in opposition to a hotel, a culinary school, a pleasure pier on the Los Angeles River, a tram to Toyon Canyon, and a destination restaurant at Griffith Observatory. However, he is still positively disposed towards an aerial tramway in Vermont Canyon, a destination restaurant at a location other than the Observatory, and one or more multi-level parking structures attached to new facilities. The Councilman now favors some type of “Natural Area” to “preserve [the] interior of park,” but his proposed boundary specifically exempts critical open and green spaces in and near developed facilities. Also exempted is Toyon Landfill in its core, even though Toyon’s long-standing specific plan stipulates a return to a wild landscape with limited passive use. Meanwhile, the Recreation and Parks Department has signaled its willingness to include an Urban Wilderness component in the revision to the Master Plan Draft. At the 9/12 Citizens Advisory Panel meeting, a sub-committee was established to develop the language to be added. Oddly enough, even though the City Council approved an Urban Wilderness in Debs Park in 2001, officials have raised doubts that such a designation is legal. This tells us that the road to its creation may not be a smooth one but, with the community’s continued insistence, an Urban Wilderness will be established in Griffith Park. These are small steps in the right direction but the devil is in the details. Currently, all of the suggestions for developed “amenities” and “improvements” remain in the Draft, as does the concept that Griffith Park should become a more man-made, commercialized place. We must continue exerting pressure until a final document is approved that is not only free of proposals for more development, but pro-actively rejects this direction as harmful to Griffith Park’s survival as the last great natural, open space in Los Angeles. Keep writing letters, circulating the petition, attending community meetings and visiting this site. |
