WORKING GROUP
| The Working Group has redrafted four of the Master
Plan's chapters. Click on the links below to read these chapters: VISION FOR GRIFFITH PARK PLANT AND ANIMAL WORLD (formerly Environment) HUMAN DIMENSION BUILT FACILITIES MOBILITY |
Next Meeting
Monday, May 5, 2008 - 6:30pm
Griffith Park Rangers' Station
4730 Crystal Springs Dr.
Monday, May 5, 2008 - 6:30pm
Griffith Park Rangers' Station
4730 Crystal Springs Dr.
Recreation & Parks Dept. is finalizing the Griffith Park Recovery Plan and
has decided to use the Monday, June 4th Meeting of the Griffith Park Draft
Master Plan Working Group as the first forum in which to unveil it to the
public. Accordingly, they have moved the meeting from the Griffith Park
Ranger Station where it is usually held, to much larger Friendship
Auditorium to accommodate a greater than usual turnout.
A detailed
PowerPoint presentation of the three-phase plan prepared by the Department
and a multi-agency task force will be made, led by Mike Shull, Rec &
Parks Director of Planning. It will be followed immediately by public
Q&A and comment. Rec & Parks management will be
present.
Other agendized business includes a presentation/discussion of several Council Motions affecting the fire recovery, but most of the meeting will be devoted to the Department's fire recovery plan.
Other agendized business includes a presentation/discussion of several Council Motions affecting the fire recovery, but most of the meeting will be devoted to the Department's fire recovery plan.
Griffith Park Master Plan - Working Group
MEETING SUMMARIES
Present: Working Group - Bernadette Soter, Clare Dareden, Craig Kessler, George
Grace, Gerry Hans, Jeff Gardner, Louis Alvarado, Lynn Brown, Richard Bogy, Susan Swan, and Valerie Vanaman.
Rory Fitzpatrick, Council District 4
Steve Davis, Bureau of Engineering
Mark Mariscal, Recreation and Parks
Vicki Israel, Recreation and Parks
Absent: Wendy Triplett
Facilitator: Kevin Regan, Assistant General Manager,
Department of Recreation and Parks
Mr. Regan opened the meeting and called the role of Working Group members.
The first item on the agenda was Old Business: “Reaffirm approval of the Natural Environment Chapter as edited.” Before discussion ensued, Ms. Vanaman requested a correction to the summary from the November 7 meeting. The name “Chris Wade” is to be corrected to “Chris Laib.” Mr. Regan asked if anyone else would like to make corrections to the minutes. Ms. Soter stated she had not had an opportunity to read the minutes and requested time to review the summary and rather than take time to read it during the meeting, she asked if any corrections could be made via an e-mail notification to the Department. Mr. Regan said that would be fine.
Mr. Regan then outlined the procedure for presenting the re-draft by stating that the subcommittee would present the document, followed by any discussion, and then re-affirmation would take place.
Ms. Soter volunteered to make the presentation and inquired if copies were available for the audience. Mr. Regan reminded Ms. Soter that copies were provided for the Working Group only and that the audience was there in an observation capacity. Ms. Soter replied that the inquiry was made to assist her in determining how much of the re-draft would have to be read aloud. Mr. Regan replied that the subject matter being addressed was being addressed to the Working Group members.
Ms. Soter then read aloud from portions of the re-draft of Chapter 4, the Natural Environment. She stated it was re-named “The Plant and Animal World” and that changes to the text are reflected in italics.
Part I is an introduction that states “Griffith Park is designated as a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) within the County of Los Angeles. The Park is a largely natural and open
environment overlaid with an existing built environment. Its natural identify is apparent in its seasonal changes…” The introduction gives a general description of the seasonal changes in the park and concludes by saying “Changes or improvements to both the built and natural environment must be accomplished in a manner that is integrated functionally and aesthetically with the Urban Wilderness Identity.”
Part II is entitled “The Existing Natural Environment” and describes the Park setting, different types of vegetation found in the Park, and the variety of mammals, insects, amphibians, reptiles and birds in the Park.
Part III describes the wildlife corridors throughout the Park and Part IV delineates specific goals and objectives in managing the natural habitat and wildlife.
Ms. Darden asked for clarification under section C (manage the rehabilitation of all areas of the park), point 5: “Golf courses in the Parks shall be environmentally responsible including applying for Audubon International certification.” Ms. Vanaman stated that this point had been included in the original Master Plan draft and that the requirements were not onerous. Mr. Davis further explained it could also mean the limited use of pesticides. Ms. Soter stated that since golf courses comprised 9% of the land use in Griffith Park, this was an excellent provision.
At this point a conversation between Mr. Mariscal and Ms. Vanaman occurred. Mr. Mariscal stated that some of the issues could be encouraged without mandating them by use of terminology such as “should” and “shall.”
Mr. Regan explained that the Master Plan is a framework and vision for the future. He didn’t think there was anything wrong with the Master Plan including a vision for the LA River to be consistent with an urban parks and wilderness identity.
Mr. Davis also mentioned the existence of a Zoo Master Plan and Golf Course Master Plan. He inquired whether or not the phrase “prohibit any further development within existing open spaces” was too limiting for the Department.
Mr. Regan stated that this language was better than what was previously offered. He then explained that there definitely needs to be designated existing open space that must be preserved, but there also needed to be the ability to improve “built” areas. Mr. Regan said it was a good statement and did not have a problem with it.
Ms. Soter called for a vote regarding the re-draft of the Environment Chapter and asked whether or not the Working Group wanted to accept this chapter as re-drafted.
Mr. Davis stated that if the Working Group was going to accept the chapter as written, he wanted to comment on the statement “mustard grass grows to shoulder height.” He stated that this type plant material is considered invasive and asked whether or not the
Group was aware of this. Ms. Soter replied that the Group was aware of this and the mustard grass has become almost one of the signatures of the Park and said that it was included in the chapter as a historic feature.
Mr. Regan asked the Working Group by a show of hands if it was their consensus that this redraft is their product, and that they want to move forward with it as part of their deliverable to the Department. He noted that everyone present had raised their hands and considered this to be a unanimous vote. Mr. Regan thanked all of the members for their hard work and dedication in completing this task.
The next item on the agenda was “discussion of future presentation by Melendrez and Associates.” A brief discussion took place, however, the conversation quickly shifted to a debate about the role of this Working Group.
A discussion between Ms. Vanaman and Mr. Regan then ensued where explanations were made as to what the Working Group’s mission was. It was stated by Mr. Regan that the Working Group’s re-write of the Draft Master Plan is community input. The Working Group is charged with adding and deleting items from the Draft Plan then that would be contained in a final document and while the Department currently has no identified funding to complete the Master Plan process, once the Department identifies funding, a consultant would be sought to compile the information that exists in the current Draft, the Working Group process, the prior community efforts, and possibly future community input to come up with a final document.
Ms. Vanaman then asked him about the next steps for the Working Group.
Mr. Regan replied that if a consultant was hired the Working Group could be involved in a number of ways. He emphasized that by putting their beliefs in writing, they were memorializing community input for the future and that in his opinion, they were doing a good job of coming to a consensus of what they believed.
Ms. Soter added that she had an e-mail from Jon Mukri, assuring her that this Working Group is based on Elysian Park model. And that the Elysian Park model has a community advisory panel whose input is binding on that process.
Mr. Regan replied that in the spirit of that, the Department brought Steve Davis of the Bureau of Engineering, who is facilitating the Elysian Park group. However, the significant difference is that the Elysian Park group is working with a consultant. Also, the Elysian Park group does not have a Master Plan Draft they are trying to re-work. He said that there is an apples and oranges comparison being made.
Mr. Regan stated that when people have said “we are throwing this document in the trash,” his response has always been “we are not doing that.” He’s made it clear that this will not happen.
Ms. Soter inquired if the Working Group would have future input if another RFP process for a consultant was to take place. Mr. Regan assured the Working Group that this could happen.
The discussion then shifted to the Department’s participation at an upcoming debate hosted by the Westside Urban Forum. Mr. Regan said that he was invited to attend and was planning to attend to represent the Department. Working Group members discussed this matter further and concluded that they were not going to have a representative present at the event.
Ms. Vanaman questioned Mr. Regan about the status of the current Master Plan Draft. And he responded that the document is in draft form and that there is value in the document.
Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that the Council Office sent out an e-mail to over 2,000 constituents expressing Councilman LaBonge’s view on the matter. He acknowledged that the Working Group has made some valuable changes and that whatever the process, if a consultant is obtained, the RFP should include the Working Group. He then suggested the meeting move on so the public could make their comments.
Following these tributary discussion, Ms. Vanaman stated she would like to have the Melendrez Group come to the next meeting. Mr. Grace then stated that the Working Group should develop a list of questions for Melendrez. Mr. Regan explained that he already provided Melendrez with a list of questions. He assured the Working Group that the consultants would answer questions and present information.
Ms. Vanaman made a motion that Melendrez come to the next meeting, that Mr. Regan e-mail the questions he sent to Melendrez to the Working Group, and that Melendrez answer specific questions and that they be placed on the agenda.
Mr. Kessler seconded the motion.
After additional discussion, it was decided that Melendrez would make their presentation on January 9 at the regular time of 6:30 p.m. at the Ranger Station Auditorium.
Mr. Regan then continued with the agenda and stated that next chapter for discussion would the Built Chapter. Ms. Soter interjected that user groups were left out of the original plan and that the Working Group was in the process of crafting a chapter on the Human Dimension of Griffith Park in which major user groups would be discussed. The major user groups have been defined as hiking, picnicking, equestrian use, bicycling, golfing, running, and team sports. Each User Group has activities for all ages. She said the subcommittee was open to interviewing individuals with expertise on User Groups.
Ms. Vanaman requested that an additional group of users be added and that would be those individuals who come to Griffith Park for specific use of the concessions, ie: trains, zoo, etc.
Mr. Regan reiterated that the next agenda would have a subcommittee update on the Human Dimension Chapter.
Public Comment consisted of citizens applauding the work of the Working Group and expressing their support to conserve the open space in Griffith Park.
The meeting was then concluded.
The Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group convened their fourth meeting on Monday, November 7, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Griffith Park Ranger Station Auditorium.
Present: Bernadette Soter, Clare Dareden, Craig Kessler, George Grace,
Gerry Hans, Jeff Gardner, Louis Alvarado, Lynn Brown, Richard Bogy, Susan Swan, and substituting for Valerie Vanaman was Chris Laib.
Absent: Wendy Triplett
Facilitator: Kevin Regan, Assistant General Manager,
Department of Recreation and Parks
Mr. Regan opened the meeting by introducing Ms. Patricia Malone, the new field deputy for Council District 4. Ms. Malone replaces Matt Levy. She is a resident of Silverlake and can be reached via e-mail at: Patricia.Malone@lacity.org.
Griffith Superintendent Vicki Israel announced the upcoming community meeting for the Griffith Observatory will be held on November 21 at 3:00 p.m. at the Satellite Office Exhibit Hall.
The Working Group then adopted their first re-write of the Griffith Park Master Plan. Consensus was reached on the Vision Chapter, as edited.
Mr. Regan announced that a presentation by Melendrez and Associates would be forthcoming. Hopefully a date will soon be finalized so that announcements could be made.
After identifying themselves and the group they are affiliated with, the Working Group proceeded with the recommendations from the sub-committee for the Environment Chapter.
The sub-committee reported there were some challenges with various issues due to a lack of expertise on some of the subject matters. They posed the question to the rest of the Working Group of the necessity to decide “how specific vs. how general” they wanted to be in their re-write.
Two specific questions were asked: 1) will there be expertise available to speak at sub-committee meetings? And, 2) will there be a moratorium on activities until the Master Plan is completed?
Mr. Regan advised that the Working Group process was started to get feedback from the community as a number of community members were unhappy and discontented with the Griffith Park Master Plan Draft. The Working Group process has evolved to where they are today and the document they are re-writing portions of is only a draft document. It is not in final form. To get to its final form, the document would need an environmental impact study before it could be presented to the Board of Recreation and Parks Commissioners and to the City Council. Mr. Regan further stated that the City is not necessarily asking the Working Group to be urban planners or architects, but is looking for community input. The Working Group is not expected to re-write the entire document.
Some Working Group members opined that it was their understanding that they were, in fact, tasked to re-write the Master Plan for eventual presentation to the general public.
The discussion returned to the question of expertise and whether or not experts would be made available to the Working Group. It was stated that a rudimentary understanding of technical subject matters such as hydrology, permeable surfaces, etc. would assist Working Group members in re-writing portions of the chapter on Built Environment.
The Working Group was informed that City employees could be made available but that there is no budget for outside consultants.
It was suggested that the Working Group compose their questions in advance for the City experts. That way, if information was needed from other departments, i.e. DWP or Sanitation, it could be researched and coordinated.
Discussion then ensued on whether or not the City would suspend any initiatives in Griffith Park until the Master Plan was completed. The Working Group was informed that the City would not be suspending initiatives in the park as some projects would not require a complete environmental impact report. The suspension of all initiatives could mean loss of funding revenue for improvement projects. Clarification was made that normal operations and maintenance projects are exempt from CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) guidelines where as capital projects are not.
It was then suggested that the vision statement could be used a “test” against other chapters to ensure projects were in line with the Urban Wilderness concept.
Sub-committee members read aloud portions of the redraft of Chapter 4, The Natural Environment. The park setting, as well as the flora and fauna were discussed in general. Specific goals and objectives in managing the natural habitat of the park were then discussed in detail. Recommendations for re-wording portions under this section were made and it was decided that additional modifications and fine-tuning may be necessary.
The next meeting of the Working Group will be Monday, December 5 at 6:30 p.m.
Public Comments included the following questions and concerns:
• Whether or not Toyon Canyon would be restored to its natural habitat
• Complaints about litter on the hiking trails and what is the City going to do about it?
• Concerns about giant development
• Suggestion to utilize best management practices from Santa Monica’s Heal the Bay project to deal with litter problem
• The need for open space and no development or paving of green space
• Alternative forms of mass transit to and throughout Griffith Park
• Whether or not the Working Group is being marginalized
• Will sewer lines being laid along the Ventura Freeway impact equestrian trails
Present: Bernadette Soter, Clare Dareden, Craig Kessler, George Grace,
Gerry Hans, Jeff Gardner, Louis Alvarado, Lynn Brown, Richard Bogy, Susan Swan, and Valerie Vanaman.
Absent: Wendy Triplett
Facilitator: Kevin Regan, Assistant General Manager,
Department of Recreation and Parks
Mr. Regan opened the meeting by introducing Ms. Vicki Israel as the new superintendent to Griffith Park. Specifically, Ms. Israel is the superintendent to the newly formed Griffith Region which includes management of all operations as well as oversight and planning responsibilities of Griffith Park, Runyon Canyon, the Wattles Mansion, and maybe Yucca and Las Palmas parks. The golf courses in Griffith Park will still be under the supervision and management of Golf Manager, James Ward.
Mr. Steve Davis, from the Bureau of Engineering was also introduced. He is a Landscape Architect and is currently involved in the Elysian Park Master Plan process.
Finally, Ms. Susan Arii was introduced. Susan will be fulfilling some of the administrative duties for the Master Plan Working Group, such as producing the meeting agenda and summaries.
Some discussion then ensued regarding personnel changes involved in this process. Concern was expressed that a management style was decided for Griffith Park without notification of the Working Group members, and that the chapter on Park Management was not yet discussed. Working Group members felt that decisions were being made without input from the group and the question of “why should we continue to be involved in the process?” was put forth.
Mr. Regan responded that everyone in the Working Group is involved in the working group process because they care about Griffith Park. He stressed that what matters is the process, not who from the department is assigned to assist.
There was some lengthy dialogue regarding the Working Group’s perception of unfairness in the process of removing personnel originally assigned to the Working Group. Mr. Regan informed the Working Group that Recreation and Parks is a large operational Department of the City and as such, personnel matters are not open for discussion. Mr. Regan gave the assurance that there would be discussion on the chapter on Park Management and that the working group process had the full support of Councilmember LaBonge and the Recreation and Parks Department. He also provide
some background regarding the responsibilities of the superintendent position of the former Griffith-Metro region and outlined the advantages in having a sole Griffith Region.
◊ Old Business
It was announced that further public review period of the public meeting documents would be on: Monday, October 17 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., and
Tuesday, October 18 from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
at the main meeting room of Central Service Yard (CSY),
3900 West Chevy Chase Drive, Los Angeles
◊ Subcommittee Update
• Recommendation for Vision Chapter (objectives)
Ms. Vanaman shared the main points of the committee’s recommendations as the chairperson for the sub-committee that revised the Vision Chapter. Specific goals and objectives included the following:
Manage the park as a natural area consistent with the park’s Urban Wilderness identity
Implement environmentally sound and sustainable programs and policies within the park
Improve park mobility
Promote an Urban Wilderness identity in the park reinforced by the design of facilities and amenities
Focus park management on the Urban Wilderness identity and improve accountability and effectiveness
Working Group members thanked Ms. Vanaman for her group’s diligence and hard work in producing such a well written document.
Public comment as it related to the Vision Chapter only was then heard with some discussion interspersed by Working Group members.
Specific wording for parts of the Vision Chapter was then discussed with Working Group members in agreement to the following changes:
Under the section “Focus park management on the Urban Wilderness identity and improve accountability and effectiveness
Re-state the following from: “Promote recreation and enjoyment by individuals and small groups as opposed to large group special events and improve management of special events to minimize impact on the Park and interference with Park users.”
TO: “Continuing to promote the existing diversity of recreation and enjoyment by individuals and small groups as opposed to large group special events and improve management of special events to minimize impact on the Park and interference with Park users.”
From including the following: “Base decision-making on potential impacts of predicted population increases in Los Angeles region.”
TO: deleting this sentence in its entirety due to redundancy
◊ Meeting Schedule Confirmation and Location
The next Working Group meeting will be held Monday, November 7 at 6:30 p.m. at the Griffith Park Ranger Station Auditorium.
◊ New Business
Mr. Regan announced that a representative from the Melendrez Group as well as General Manager Jon Mukri, would be available to make a presentation at a future Working Group meeting. Responses from the Working Group were varied but it was ultimately agreed that any and all resources available for assistance in completing the re-work of the Master Plan would be valuable and should be considered.
Working Group members agreed that the next chapter for discussion would be the Environment Chapter. Prior to the next meeting, Ms. Vanaman agreed to chair a sub-committee to examine on whether or not to divide the chapter into “natural” vs. “built” as well as make chapter proposals. She indicated that sub-committee meeting dates and locations would be sent via e-mail.
◊ Public Comment
It was announced that Elaine Brock from the Department of Water and Power would be making a presentation next Thursday at the Buena Vista Library at 6:30 p.m. regarding DWP operations in Griffith Park.
Mr. Fitzpatrick, from Councilmember LaBonge’s office, announced that there would be a new field deputy for the Los Feliz area as Matt Levy would be leaving, but he did not yet have a replacement.
Various opinions were expressed ranging from problems with planning to having leases written by the City and not the lease user.
Third Meeting, September 12, 2005
The Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group convened their third meeting on Monday,
September 12, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Park Ranger Station Auditorium.
Members in attendance at this meeting were:
George Grace, Susan Swan, Craig Kessler (alternate Jim Gilbert was in
attendance), Gerry Hans, Bernadette Soter, Valerie Vannerman, Lynn Brown, Jeff
Gardener, Louis Alvarado, Richard Bogy, and added member Clare Darden (from
the Griffith Trust). Wendy Triplett.was absent. Acting Assistant General
Manager Kevin Regan facilitated the meeting. Ms. Darden read a letter from Van
Griffith, great-grandson of Griffith J. Griffith, expressing concerns about content
of the draft Master Plan.
. Old Business
On Tuesday evening, September 27, 2005, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., and Wednesday
morning, September 28, 2005, from 8:00 a.m. to noon, Recreation and Parks will make available
for public review the original Community Workshop Materials, as well as all materials connected
with a report done as a Leisure Studies class project through Cal State Northridge. Any
interested persons are welcome. The location will be Conference Room #1, downstairs, at the
Recreation and Parks Central Service Yard, 3900 W. Chevy Chase, Los Angeles, 90039.
. Draft Plan Chapter Review
Note: Points of Recommendation for addition or correction to the Draft Griffith Park Master Plan will be noted as
Working Group Recommendation or WGR.
• 2. Vision (Objectives)
Discussion resumed on the core issues of the draft Plan’s Vision chapter, which establishes the
groundwork for reviewing, revising, and rebuilding the rest of the draft Plan that follows it. A
review of the Northridge Study, summarized by Ms. Soter, reflected a primarily passive
recreational interest among Griffith Park users surveyed. This information launched further
discussion on the meaning of “passive” versus “active” recreation, and also about the audiences
that use Griffith Park. The Northridge Study was seen as generally in consensus with the
majority of commentary coming in on the Urban Wilderness petition forms.
As in the prior meeting, the theme expression, “Living Laboratory of Learning” engendered
concerns, such as: is it indicative of too activist an approach to managing the Park’s natural
areas, or does it seem to grant too much opportunity for intervention in the Park? The subject of
“urban wilderness” became intertwined as a possible theme concept contrasting with the “living
laboratory.” Discussion ensued about how “urban wilderness” is defined or should be defined,
and how the concept is defined in the Debs Park framework plan. Group members expressed
opinions about the Debs example and also about how “urban wilderness” could be defined for
Griffith Park as an integral element in the revision of the Master Plan draft. The concept of
establishing a clear boundary for a segment in the heart of the Park to be designated as “urban
wilderness” and given special protection was surfaced and discussed. The challenges of
defining and maintaining specific borders was raised in connection with that alternative. Also,
the interdependence of both developed and undeveloped areas in Griffith Park were seen as
suggesting the benefit of a customized approach. Also covered in this discussion was the
potentially divisive decision-making about how Griffith Park, being a Regional Park, best serves
regional needs.
The working group reached a consensus in discussions that satisfactory revision of the Vision
chapter would lead to more productive and efficient editing of the rest of the plan, and that the
“Living Laboratory for Learning” theme should be removed to an ancillary recommendation in
the Natural Environment or other appropriate section, while “Urban Wilderness,” to be defined
as part of a revised Vision, should replace it as the cornerstone of the Vision’s objectives. Ms.
Vanaman agreed to chair an ad hoc meeting of the Working Group to work on revising the
Vision under that guidance, for presentation in draft form at the next regular meeting of the
Working Group.
WGR: Drop “Living Laboratory for Learning” as theme concept in Vision and utilize an “Urban
Wilderness” theme to be carefully defined for all of Griffith Park.
• 3. Education
Initial discussion on this brief Chapter questioned the purpose of the separate chapter and
whether portions integrated better in other existing chapters. The establishment of the icon
system for noting miscellaneous ideas, often ideas which are controversial, is included in this
chapter, but was seen as an aspect of the draft Plan likely to be dropped. Upon further
discussion, the contents of the Education Chapter were also designated for review by the ad hoc
group with a goal of incorporating salvageable information into the Vision or other chapters.
WGR: Eliminate separate Education Chapter and integrate worthy information into Vision or
other chapters as appropriate.
Public Comment
During the Public Comment period, members of the audience commented principally on the
“urban wilderness” concept, that Griffith Park could be a leader in defining it as a park-wide
concept, and that many opportunities for learning exist within the Park
The Grand Opening on September 22nd, 3:00 p.m., of the new Ranger Visitors’ Center was
announced. This new interpretive space was funded primarily through the generosity of the
Griffith J. Griffith Trust.
The next meeting will be Monday, October 3, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Park Ranger
Auditorium. The regular schedule for meetings will be monthly on the first Monday of the
month, with provision to modify for special circumstances. Meetings will remain the Ranger
Station for consistency.
The agenda for the next meeting will review the revised Vision and begin Built Environment,
Design Guidelines, and Mobility chapters.
August 1, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Park Ranger Station Auditorium. The meeting was
proceeded by an informal session at which Working Group members looked through the various
other Park planning documents which had been requested at the previous meeting.
Members in attendance at this meeting were:
George Grace, Susan Swan, Craig Kessler (alternate Jim Gilbert was in
attendance), Gerry Hans, Bernadette Soter, Valerie Vannerman, Lynn Brown, Jeff
Gardener, Louis Alvarado, Wendy Triplett. Richard Bogy was absent. Acting
Assistant General Manager Kevin Regan facilitated the meeting.
. Old Business
Follow-up discussion on membership of the Working Group was concluded with the direction to
Recreation and Parks staff to formally invite a representative of the Griffith Trust to sit on the
Working Group, if the Trust so wished. Otherwise, the constituency of the Working Group is set
at this time.
Working Group members discussed the various Park planning background documents made
available as requested and determined to forward a list to Recreation and Parks of the materials
which should be copied for all Working Group members. Members also had an interest in
pertinent elements of the City’s General Plan (Open Space and Public Facilities as it relates to
parks and recreation) which the Council office committed to supply.
Recreation and Parks was also able to obtain from storage at the offices of draft Master Plan
contractor, Melendrez, all original Community Workshop Materials as well as all materials
connected with a report done as a Leisure Studies class project through Cal State Northridge, and
the final Northridge report. Working Group members and the public expressed an interest in
viewing these documents at a Saturday open house session, to be set up by Recreation and Parks,
and were generally pleased to note that the materials were still extant. An interest in digitally
archiving materials was discussed.
. Draft Plan Chapter Review
Note: Points of Recommendation for addition or correction to the Draft Griffith Park Master Plan will be noted as
Working Group Recommendation or WGR.
Chapter review of the draft Plan was prefaced by comments about the title and acknowledgments
page, with note that the impression of collaboration and input by many of the entities in the
acknowledgments was overstated and misleading.
WGR: Upon publication of a future draft, acknowledgments must be reflective of actual,
meaningful participation.
WGR: The preface will need to incorporate the Working Group process and any other steps that
may occur prior to re-draft.
• 1. Introduction
In discussion, Working Group members found information on the Park’s history, and on the prior
Master Plan efforts, to be useful background, however those facts should be validated. General
concern surfaced repeatedly on the issues of development and commercialization, and
suggestions of additional background to be included that would inform recommendations later in
the Plan.
WGR: Include more coverage of Griffith’s views of the Park and his intentions for its use,
including his views on development and facilities in the Park.
WGR: Analyze the trend in ratio of developed acres versus open space acres in the Park over the
century of Park history; provide analysis of the impacts on the Park of various developments over
time.
• 2. Vision (Objectives)
The core issue of the purpose of a master plan, and particularly a Master Plan for Griffith Park,
was a key discussion thread during review of the Vision. Concerns were raised that the Plan was
prepared without first performing a Griffith Park-specific Needs Assessment and/or review of
User Group Interests, and that planning for Griffith Park to meet general regional recreation
needs must be performed in the context of other nearby regional recreational developments (i.e.
Taylor Yards and Cornfields). In that connection, the Northridge study was of interest for
further reading by Working Group members. The draft Plan’s theme for the Park, “Living
Laboratory for Learning,” was seen as vague and suggestive of a more active, interventionist
direction for the Park than was comfortable to many Working Group members. Even that theme
statement was seen as leading to need for financial support, and segueing into recommendations
for corporate and other financial partnerships or relationships that concerned the Working Group.
Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group
Meeting Summary - 2nd Meeting
August 1, 2005
Questions were raised as to whether pressure was being exerted, and from which quarters if so,
for Griffith Park to serve a larger revenue enhancement goal for the City.
Further discussion and additional specific recommendations will come at future meetings.
WGR: Define “Park-wide Arboretum” as used in the Plan and clarify what actions or policies
that entails.
WGR: Provide analysis of alternative recreational resources to serve regional needs, including
other parks in the City of Los Angeles, Burbank and Glendale parks, and Los Angeles Unified
School District cooperative property use, and factor that into goals and objectives regarding
active recreation and sports activities use in Griffith Park.
. Public Comment
During the Public Comment period, members of the audience expanded on the suggestions and
concerns addressed by Working Group members, with a focus on allowing Griffith Park to be
unique among parks in the City and the nation, and adding protections against commercialism.
About forty members of the public attended. Among the comments:
• Supports the open process of the Working Group
• Add information about the Park’s current community partners and analysis of whether
current facilities in the Park are maximized.
• Needs of plants and animals in the Park must be balanced with the needs of people.
The next meeting will be Monday, September 12, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Park Ranger
Auditorium. The regular schedule for meetings will be monthly on the first Monday of the
month, with provision to modify for special circumstances.
The agenda for the next meeting will continue comments on Vision and include discussion on
Education and start on the Built Environment.
Action Items for Recreation and Parks:
1. Distribute requested copies of reference materials to Working Group members.
2. Set up a public review session for the Community Outreach Workshop materials.
3. Provide more readable name plates for Working Group members and provide amplified
sound if possible.
First Meeting, July 13, 2005
ultimately responsible for creating a revised draft Master Plan, using input from the
Working Group.
• At this juncture, there is no funding for Melendrez (the consultants who prepared the
draft Plan) to participate in the Working Group meetings or to work on a revised draft;
efforts are on-going to determine how to get additional funding to make revisions, or how
to prepare a re-draft in-house.
• The preliminary timetable for the Working Group is six months to a completed package
of revision recommendations for the draft Plan, but as work commences that timetable
may be modified to meet needs and circumstances. Sub-committees may be formed if
appropriate to study and report on particular topics.
• The Working Group should make decisions by consensus, after a discussion, rather than
through a formal voting process. The Working Group is not governed by the Brown Act,
but meetings are currently planned to be open to the public and allow for public
comments. Mr. Regan will prepare the agenda for meetings.
The opening discussion focused on the composition of the Working Group, the process for
nomination, selection, and appointment of members, and at what point the Group would be
finalized as far as member changes. Key points:
Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group
• A member suggested adding a representative from the Griffith J. Griffith Trust; Group
members debated the possibility that there may be a few other appropriate additions, to insure
the broadest representation, weighed against the concerns that Group size be kept workable
and to establish membership stability so that work proceeds with consistency.
• Also designated for the Working Group by the Councilmember and the General Manager are
Ex Officio members, representing all Griffith Park facilities and various agencies within the
City and in neighboring cities that have a role or interest in Griffith Park; Group members
questioned and discussed to what extent would the ex officio members be involved in
formulating recommendations, inasmuchas they have other formal channels for participating
in the Draft plan and had previous input into the Draft plan.
• Other comments--
-Working Group members all should consider and provide input to the plan in it’s
entirety, and not focus only on special interests.
-Keep attendance of Working Group members and take action to remove or replace
members with high absenteeism.
-Experts in certain specialties (e.g. wildlife corridors), or the Melendrez staff who worked
on the draft Plan may need to be made available for consultation.
-Staff or persons who will be charged with preparing any reports or a revised draft must
be involved in all Working Group meetings.
Background information on the formulation of the 1968 Master Plan (more of a landscape and
design guide) and the 1978 Master Plan, along with an overview of the 1978 plan, was presented.
Recreation and Parks staff also distributed a roster of public comments received so far on the
draft Master Plan, and re-capped a significant interest in a designation of the Park or portions of
the Park as “urban wilderness.” Staff cited use of that designation in the Debs Park Framework
plan, and the Working Group discussed briefly the various interpretations of Master Plan,
Framework Plan, and Specific Plan, as well as the concerns about whether individual facility
plans or the Park Master Plan, should have final governing authority in Park planning matters.
During the Public Comment period, members of the audience expressed their concerns and
comments, many of them relating to the need for openness in the review process, good
communication with the public, and opportunities for continued public input and review going
forward toward production of a re-draft. About twenty members of the public attended.
The next meeting will be Monday, August 1, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Park Ranger
Auditorium. A schedule for future meetings will be discussed at that time. The agenda for the
next meeting will include review of the Vision and Education chapters, and if time allows, a start
on the Built Environment chapter review.
Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group
Action Items for Recreation and Parks:
• Obtain copies of existing master plans, as referenced in the draft Griffith Park Master Plan,
which had been developed previously for each of the facilities in the Park; copies to be at the
next meeting.
• Research with Melendrez (draft Master Plan preparation contractors) the existence of any
remaining raw materials from the three community workshops.
• Post the meeting summaries and agendas, for public information, on the Griffith Park Master
Plan page of the Recreation and Park Internet site.
• Provide name plates for Working Group members.
• Bring a copy of the version Melendrez labeled “Draft - August 2004” for inspection at the
next meeting.
Click
Here for official notices regarding agenda posting,
public comment, disabled services and process for reconsideration.MEETING SUMMARIES
Sixth Meeting held December 5, 2005
The Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group convened their
sixth meeting on Monday, December 5, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Griffith
Park Ranger Station Auditorium. Present: Working Group - Bernadette Soter, Clare Dareden, Craig Kessler, George
Grace, Gerry Hans, Jeff Gardner, Louis Alvarado, Lynn Brown, Richard Bogy, Susan Swan, and Valerie Vanaman.
Rory Fitzpatrick, Council District 4
Steve Davis, Bureau of Engineering
Mark Mariscal, Recreation and Parks
Vicki Israel, Recreation and Parks
Absent: Wendy Triplett
Facilitator: Kevin Regan, Assistant General Manager,
Department of Recreation and Parks
Mr. Regan opened the meeting and called the role of Working Group members.
The first item on the agenda was Old Business: “Reaffirm approval of the Natural Environment Chapter as edited.” Before discussion ensued, Ms. Vanaman requested a correction to the summary from the November 7 meeting. The name “Chris Wade” is to be corrected to “Chris Laib.” Mr. Regan asked if anyone else would like to make corrections to the minutes. Ms. Soter stated she had not had an opportunity to read the minutes and requested time to review the summary and rather than take time to read it during the meeting, she asked if any corrections could be made via an e-mail notification to the Department. Mr. Regan said that would be fine.
Mr. Regan then outlined the procedure for presenting the re-draft by stating that the subcommittee would present the document, followed by any discussion, and then re-affirmation would take place.
Ms. Soter volunteered to make the presentation and inquired if copies were available for the audience. Mr. Regan reminded Ms. Soter that copies were provided for the Working Group only and that the audience was there in an observation capacity. Ms. Soter replied that the inquiry was made to assist her in determining how much of the re-draft would have to be read aloud. Mr. Regan replied that the subject matter being addressed was being addressed to the Working Group members.
Ms. Soter then read aloud from portions of the re-draft of Chapter 4, the Natural Environment. She stated it was re-named “The Plant and Animal World” and that changes to the text are reflected in italics.
Part I is an introduction that states “Griffith Park is designated as a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) within the County of Los Angeles. The Park is a largely natural and open
environment overlaid with an existing built environment. Its natural identify is apparent in its seasonal changes…” The introduction gives a general description of the seasonal changes in the park and concludes by saying “Changes or improvements to both the built and natural environment must be accomplished in a manner that is integrated functionally and aesthetically with the Urban Wilderness Identity.”
Part II is entitled “The Existing Natural Environment” and describes the Park setting, different types of vegetation found in the Park, and the variety of mammals, insects, amphibians, reptiles and birds in the Park.
Part III describes the wildlife corridors throughout the Park and Part IV delineates specific goals and objectives in managing the natural habitat and wildlife.
Ms. Darden asked for clarification under section C (manage the rehabilitation of all areas of the park), point 5: “Golf courses in the Parks shall be environmentally responsible including applying for Audubon International certification.” Ms. Vanaman stated that this point had been included in the original Master Plan draft and that the requirements were not onerous. Mr. Davis further explained it could also mean the limited use of pesticides. Ms. Soter stated that since golf courses comprised 9% of the land use in Griffith Park, this was an excellent provision.
At this point a conversation between Mr. Mariscal and Ms. Vanaman occurred. Mr. Mariscal stated that some of the issues could be encouraged without mandating them by use of terminology such as “should” and “shall.”
Mr. Regan explained that the Master Plan is a framework and vision for the future. He didn’t think there was anything wrong with the Master Plan including a vision for the LA River to be consistent with an urban parks and wilderness identity.
Mr. Davis also mentioned the existence of a Zoo Master Plan and Golf Course Master Plan. He inquired whether or not the phrase “prohibit any further development within existing open spaces” was too limiting for the Department.
Mr. Regan stated that this language was better than what was previously offered. He then explained that there definitely needs to be designated existing open space that must be preserved, but there also needed to be the ability to improve “built” areas. Mr. Regan said it was a good statement and did not have a problem with it.
Ms. Soter called for a vote regarding the re-draft of the Environment Chapter and asked whether or not the Working Group wanted to accept this chapter as re-drafted.
Mr. Davis stated that if the Working Group was going to accept the chapter as written, he wanted to comment on the statement “mustard grass grows to shoulder height.” He stated that this type plant material is considered invasive and asked whether or not the
Group was aware of this. Ms. Soter replied that the Group was aware of this and the mustard grass has become almost one of the signatures of the Park and said that it was included in the chapter as a historic feature.
Mr. Regan asked the Working Group by a show of hands if it was their consensus that this redraft is their product, and that they want to move forward with it as part of their deliverable to the Department. He noted that everyone present had raised their hands and considered this to be a unanimous vote. Mr. Regan thanked all of the members for their hard work and dedication in completing this task.
The next item on the agenda was “discussion of future presentation by Melendrez and Associates.” A brief discussion took place, however, the conversation quickly shifted to a debate about the role of this Working Group.
A discussion between Ms. Vanaman and Mr. Regan then ensued where explanations were made as to what the Working Group’s mission was. It was stated by Mr. Regan that the Working Group’s re-write of the Draft Master Plan is community input. The Working Group is charged with adding and deleting items from the Draft Plan then that would be contained in a final document and while the Department currently has no identified funding to complete the Master Plan process, once the Department identifies funding, a consultant would be sought to compile the information that exists in the current Draft, the Working Group process, the prior community efforts, and possibly future community input to come up with a final document.
Ms. Vanaman then asked him about the next steps for the Working Group.
Mr. Regan replied that if a consultant was hired the Working Group could be involved in a number of ways. He emphasized that by putting their beliefs in writing, they were memorializing community input for the future and that in his opinion, they were doing a good job of coming to a consensus of what they believed.
Ms. Soter added that she had an e-mail from Jon Mukri, assuring her that this Working Group is based on Elysian Park model. And that the Elysian Park model has a community advisory panel whose input is binding on that process.
Mr. Regan replied that in the spirit of that, the Department brought Steve Davis of the Bureau of Engineering, who is facilitating the Elysian Park group. However, the significant difference is that the Elysian Park group is working with a consultant. Also, the Elysian Park group does not have a Master Plan Draft they are trying to re-work. He said that there is an apples and oranges comparison being made.
Mr. Regan stated that when people have said “we are throwing this document in the trash,” his response has always been “we are not doing that.” He’s made it clear that this will not happen.
Ms. Soter inquired if the Working Group would have future input if another RFP process for a consultant was to take place. Mr. Regan assured the Working Group that this could happen.
The discussion then shifted to the Department’s participation at an upcoming debate hosted by the Westside Urban Forum. Mr. Regan said that he was invited to attend and was planning to attend to represent the Department. Working Group members discussed this matter further and concluded that they were not going to have a representative present at the event.
Ms. Vanaman questioned Mr. Regan about the status of the current Master Plan Draft. And he responded that the document is in draft form and that there is value in the document.
Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that the Council Office sent out an e-mail to over 2,000 constituents expressing Councilman LaBonge’s view on the matter. He acknowledged that the Working Group has made some valuable changes and that whatever the process, if a consultant is obtained, the RFP should include the Working Group. He then suggested the meeting move on so the public could make their comments.
Following these tributary discussion, Ms. Vanaman stated she would like to have the Melendrez Group come to the next meeting. Mr. Grace then stated that the Working Group should develop a list of questions for Melendrez. Mr. Regan explained that he already provided Melendrez with a list of questions. He assured the Working Group that the consultants would answer questions and present information.
Ms. Vanaman made a motion that Melendrez come to the next meeting, that Mr. Regan e-mail the questions he sent to Melendrez to the Working Group, and that Melendrez answer specific questions and that they be placed on the agenda.
Mr. Kessler seconded the motion.
After additional discussion, it was decided that Melendrez would make their presentation on January 9 at the regular time of 6:30 p.m. at the Ranger Station Auditorium.
Mr. Regan then continued with the agenda and stated that next chapter for discussion would the Built Chapter. Ms. Soter interjected that user groups were left out of the original plan and that the Working Group was in the process of crafting a chapter on the Human Dimension of Griffith Park in which major user groups would be discussed. The major user groups have been defined as hiking, picnicking, equestrian use, bicycling, golfing, running, and team sports. Each User Group has activities for all ages. She said the subcommittee was open to interviewing individuals with expertise on User Groups.
Ms. Vanaman requested that an additional group of users be added and that would be those individuals who come to Griffith Park for specific use of the concessions, ie: trains, zoo, etc.
Mr. Regan reiterated that the next agenda would have a subcommittee update on the Human Dimension Chapter.
Public Comment consisted of citizens applauding the work of the Working Group and expressing their support to conserve the open space in Griffith Park.
The meeting was then concluded.
Fifth Meeting held November 7, 2005
The Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group convened their fourth meeting on Monday, November 7, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Griffith Park Ranger Station Auditorium.
Present: Bernadette Soter, Clare Dareden, Craig Kessler, George Grace,
Gerry Hans, Jeff Gardner, Louis Alvarado, Lynn Brown, Richard Bogy, Susan Swan, and substituting for Valerie Vanaman was Chris Laib.
Absent: Wendy Triplett
Facilitator: Kevin Regan, Assistant General Manager,
Department of Recreation and Parks
Mr. Regan opened the meeting by introducing Ms. Patricia Malone, the new field deputy for Council District 4. Ms. Malone replaces Matt Levy. She is a resident of Silverlake and can be reached via e-mail at: Patricia.Malone@lacity.org.
Griffith Superintendent Vicki Israel announced the upcoming community meeting for the Griffith Observatory will be held on November 21 at 3:00 p.m. at the Satellite Office Exhibit Hall.
The Working Group then adopted their first re-write of the Griffith Park Master Plan. Consensus was reached on the Vision Chapter, as edited.
Mr. Regan announced that a presentation by Melendrez and Associates would be forthcoming. Hopefully a date will soon be finalized so that announcements could be made.
After identifying themselves and the group they are affiliated with, the Working Group proceeded with the recommendations from the sub-committee for the Environment Chapter.
The sub-committee reported there were some challenges with various issues due to a lack of expertise on some of the subject matters. They posed the question to the rest of the Working Group of the necessity to decide “how specific vs. how general” they wanted to be in their re-write.
Two specific questions were asked: 1) will there be expertise available to speak at sub-committee meetings? And, 2) will there be a moratorium on activities until the Master Plan is completed?
Mr. Regan advised that the Working Group process was started to get feedback from the community as a number of community members were unhappy and discontented with the Griffith Park Master Plan Draft. The Working Group process has evolved to where they are today and the document they are re-writing portions of is only a draft document. It is not in final form. To get to its final form, the document would need an environmental impact study before it could be presented to the Board of Recreation and Parks Commissioners and to the City Council. Mr. Regan further stated that the City is not necessarily asking the Working Group to be urban planners or architects, but is looking for community input. The Working Group is not expected to re-write the entire document.
Some Working Group members opined that it was their understanding that they were, in fact, tasked to re-write the Master Plan for eventual presentation to the general public.
The discussion returned to the question of expertise and whether or not experts would be made available to the Working Group. It was stated that a rudimentary understanding of technical subject matters such as hydrology, permeable surfaces, etc. would assist Working Group members in re-writing portions of the chapter on Built Environment.
The Working Group was informed that City employees could be made available but that there is no budget for outside consultants.
It was suggested that the Working Group compose their questions in advance for the City experts. That way, if information was needed from other departments, i.e. DWP or Sanitation, it could be researched and coordinated.
Discussion then ensued on whether or not the City would suspend any initiatives in Griffith Park until the Master Plan was completed. The Working Group was informed that the City would not be suspending initiatives in the park as some projects would not require a complete environmental impact report. The suspension of all initiatives could mean loss of funding revenue for improvement projects. Clarification was made that normal operations and maintenance projects are exempt from CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) guidelines where as capital projects are not.
It was then suggested that the vision statement could be used a “test” against other chapters to ensure projects were in line with the Urban Wilderness concept.
Sub-committee members read aloud portions of the redraft of Chapter 4, The Natural Environment. The park setting, as well as the flora and fauna were discussed in general. Specific goals and objectives in managing the natural habitat of the park were then discussed in detail. Recommendations for re-wording portions under this section were made and it was decided that additional modifications and fine-tuning may be necessary.
The next meeting of the Working Group will be Monday, December 5 at 6:30 p.m.
Public Comments included the following questions and concerns:
• Whether or not Toyon Canyon would be restored to its natural habitat
• Complaints about litter on the hiking trails and what is the City going to do about it?
• Concerns about giant development
• Suggestion to utilize best management practices from Santa Monica’s Heal the Bay project to deal with litter problem
• The need for open space and no development or paving of green space
• Alternative forms of mass transit to and throughout Griffith Park
• Whether or not the Working Group is being marginalized
• Will sewer lines being laid along the Ventura Freeway impact equestrian trails
Fourth Meeting held October 11, 2005
The Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group convened their
fourth meeting on Tuesday, October 11, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the
Griffith Park Ranger Station Auditorium. Present: Bernadette Soter, Clare Dareden, Craig Kessler, George Grace,
Gerry Hans, Jeff Gardner, Louis Alvarado, Lynn Brown, Richard Bogy, Susan Swan, and Valerie Vanaman.
Absent: Wendy Triplett
Facilitator: Kevin Regan, Assistant General Manager,
Department of Recreation and Parks
Mr. Regan opened the meeting by introducing Ms. Vicki Israel as the new superintendent to Griffith Park. Specifically, Ms. Israel is the superintendent to the newly formed Griffith Region which includes management of all operations as well as oversight and planning responsibilities of Griffith Park, Runyon Canyon, the Wattles Mansion, and maybe Yucca and Las Palmas parks. The golf courses in Griffith Park will still be under the supervision and management of Golf Manager, James Ward.
Mr. Steve Davis, from the Bureau of Engineering was also introduced. He is a Landscape Architect and is currently involved in the Elysian Park Master Plan process.
Finally, Ms. Susan Arii was introduced. Susan will be fulfilling some of the administrative duties for the Master Plan Working Group, such as producing the meeting agenda and summaries.
Some discussion then ensued regarding personnel changes involved in this process. Concern was expressed that a management style was decided for Griffith Park without notification of the Working Group members, and that the chapter on Park Management was not yet discussed. Working Group members felt that decisions were being made without input from the group and the question of “why should we continue to be involved in the process?” was put forth.
Mr. Regan responded that everyone in the Working Group is involved in the working group process because they care about Griffith Park. He stressed that what matters is the process, not who from the department is assigned to assist.
There was some lengthy dialogue regarding the Working Group’s perception of unfairness in the process of removing personnel originally assigned to the Working Group. Mr. Regan informed the Working Group that Recreation and Parks is a large operational Department of the City and as such, personnel matters are not open for discussion. Mr. Regan gave the assurance that there would be discussion on the chapter on Park Management and that the working group process had the full support of Councilmember LaBonge and the Recreation and Parks Department. He also provide
some background regarding the responsibilities of the superintendent position of the former Griffith-Metro region and outlined the advantages in having a sole Griffith Region.
◊ Old Business
It was announced that further public review period of the public meeting documents would be on: Monday, October 17 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., and
Tuesday, October 18 from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
at the main meeting room of Central Service Yard (CSY),
3900 West Chevy Chase Drive, Los Angeles
◊ Subcommittee Update
• Recommendation for Vision Chapter (objectives)
Ms. Vanaman shared the main points of the committee’s recommendations as the chairperson for the sub-committee that revised the Vision Chapter. Specific goals and objectives included the following:
Manage the park as a natural area consistent with the park’s Urban Wilderness identity
Implement environmentally sound and sustainable programs and policies within the park
Improve park mobility
Promote an Urban Wilderness identity in the park reinforced by the design of facilities and amenities
Focus park management on the Urban Wilderness identity and improve accountability and effectiveness
Working Group members thanked Ms. Vanaman for her group’s diligence and hard work in producing such a well written document.
Public comment as it related to the Vision Chapter only was then heard with some discussion interspersed by Working Group members.
Specific wording for parts of the Vision Chapter was then discussed with Working Group members in agreement to the following changes:
Under the section “Focus park management on the Urban Wilderness identity and improve accountability and effectiveness
Re-state the following from: “Promote recreation and enjoyment by individuals and small groups as opposed to large group special events and improve management of special events to minimize impact on the Park and interference with Park users.”
TO: “Continuing to promote the existing diversity of recreation and enjoyment by individuals and small groups as opposed to large group special events and improve management of special events to minimize impact on the Park and interference with Park users.”
From including the following: “Base decision-making on potential impacts of predicted population increases in Los Angeles region.”
TO: deleting this sentence in its entirety due to redundancy
◊ Meeting Schedule Confirmation and Location
The next Working Group meeting will be held Monday, November 7 at 6:30 p.m. at the Griffith Park Ranger Station Auditorium.
◊ New Business
Mr. Regan announced that a representative from the Melendrez Group as well as General Manager Jon Mukri, would be available to make a presentation at a future Working Group meeting. Responses from the Working Group were varied but it was ultimately agreed that any and all resources available for assistance in completing the re-work of the Master Plan would be valuable and should be considered.
Working Group members agreed that the next chapter for discussion would be the Environment Chapter. Prior to the next meeting, Ms. Vanaman agreed to chair a sub-committee to examine on whether or not to divide the chapter into “natural” vs. “built” as well as make chapter proposals. She indicated that sub-committee meeting dates and locations would be sent via e-mail.
◊ Public Comment
It was announced that Elaine Brock from the Department of Water and Power would be making a presentation next Thursday at the Buena Vista Library at 6:30 p.m. regarding DWP operations in Griffith Park.
Mr. Fitzpatrick, from Councilmember LaBonge’s office, announced that there would be a new field deputy for the Los Feliz area as Matt Levy would be leaving, but he did not yet have a replacement.
Various opinions were expressed ranging from problems with planning to having leases written by the City and not the lease user.
The Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group convened their third meeting on Monday,
September 12, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Park Ranger Station Auditorium.
Members in attendance at this meeting were:
George Grace, Susan Swan, Craig Kessler (alternate Jim Gilbert was in
attendance), Gerry Hans, Bernadette Soter, Valerie Vannerman, Lynn Brown, Jeff
Gardener, Louis Alvarado, Richard Bogy, and added member Clare Darden (from
the Griffith Trust). Wendy Triplett.was absent. Acting Assistant General
Manager Kevin Regan facilitated the meeting. Ms. Darden read a letter from Van
Griffith, great-grandson of Griffith J. Griffith, expressing concerns about content
of the draft Master Plan.
. Old Business
On Tuesday evening, September 27, 2005, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., and Wednesday
morning, September 28, 2005, from 8:00 a.m. to noon, Recreation and Parks will make available
for public review the original Community Workshop Materials, as well as all materials connected
with a report done as a Leisure Studies class project through Cal State Northridge. Any
interested persons are welcome. The location will be Conference Room #1, downstairs, at the
Recreation and Parks Central Service Yard, 3900 W. Chevy Chase, Los Angeles, 90039.
. Draft Plan Chapter Review
Note: Points of Recommendation for addition or correction to the Draft Griffith Park Master Plan will be noted as
Working Group Recommendation or WGR.
• 2. Vision (Objectives)
Discussion resumed on the core issues of the draft Plan’s Vision chapter, which establishes the
groundwork for reviewing, revising, and rebuilding the rest of the draft Plan that follows it. A
review of the Northridge Study, summarized by Ms. Soter, reflected a primarily passive
recreational interest among Griffith Park users surveyed. This information launched further
discussion on the meaning of “passive” versus “active” recreation, and also about the audiences
that use Griffith Park. The Northridge Study was seen as generally in consensus with the
majority of commentary coming in on the Urban Wilderness petition forms.
As in the prior meeting, the theme expression, “Living Laboratory of Learning” engendered
concerns, such as: is it indicative of too activist an approach to managing the Park’s natural
areas, or does it seem to grant too much opportunity for intervention in the Park? The subject of
“urban wilderness” became intertwined as a possible theme concept contrasting with the “living
laboratory.” Discussion ensued about how “urban wilderness” is defined or should be defined,
and how the concept is defined in the Debs Park framework plan. Group members expressed
opinions about the Debs example and also about how “urban wilderness” could be defined for
Griffith Park as an integral element in the revision of the Master Plan draft. The concept of
establishing a clear boundary for a segment in the heart of the Park to be designated as “urban
wilderness” and given special protection was surfaced and discussed. The challenges of
defining and maintaining specific borders was raised in connection with that alternative. Also,
the interdependence of both developed and undeveloped areas in Griffith Park were seen as
suggesting the benefit of a customized approach. Also covered in this discussion was the
potentially divisive decision-making about how Griffith Park, being a Regional Park, best serves
regional needs.
The working group reached a consensus in discussions that satisfactory revision of the Vision
chapter would lead to more productive and efficient editing of the rest of the plan, and that the
“Living Laboratory for Learning” theme should be removed to an ancillary recommendation in
the Natural Environment or other appropriate section, while “Urban Wilderness,” to be defined
as part of a revised Vision, should replace it as the cornerstone of the Vision’s objectives. Ms.
Vanaman agreed to chair an ad hoc meeting of the Working Group to work on revising the
Vision under that guidance, for presentation in draft form at the next regular meeting of the
Working Group.
WGR: Drop “Living Laboratory for Learning” as theme concept in Vision and utilize an “Urban
Wilderness” theme to be carefully defined for all of Griffith Park.
• 3. Education
Initial discussion on this brief Chapter questioned the purpose of the separate chapter and
whether portions integrated better in other existing chapters. The establishment of the icon
system for noting miscellaneous ideas, often ideas which are controversial, is included in this
chapter, but was seen as an aspect of the draft Plan likely to be dropped. Upon further
discussion, the contents of the Education Chapter were also designated for review by the ad hoc
group with a goal of incorporating salvageable information into the Vision or other chapters.
WGR: Eliminate separate Education Chapter and integrate worthy information into Vision or
other chapters as appropriate.
Public Comment
During the Public Comment period, members of the audience commented principally on the
“urban wilderness” concept, that Griffith Park could be a leader in defining it as a park-wide
concept, and that many opportunities for learning exist within the Park
The Grand Opening on September 22nd, 3:00 p.m., of the new Ranger Visitors’ Center was
announced. This new interpretive space was funded primarily through the generosity of the
Griffith J. Griffith Trust.
The next meeting will be Monday, October 3, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Park Ranger
Auditorium. The regular schedule for meetings will be monthly on the first Monday of the
month, with provision to modify for special circumstances. Meetings will remain the Ranger
Station for consistency.
The agenda for the next meeting will review the revised Vision and begin Built Environment,
Design Guidelines, and Mobility chapters.
Second Meeting, August 1, 2005
The Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group convened their second meeting on Monday,August 1, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Park Ranger Station Auditorium. The meeting was
proceeded by an informal session at which Working Group members looked through the various
other Park planning documents which had been requested at the previous meeting.
Members in attendance at this meeting were:
George Grace, Susan Swan, Craig Kessler (alternate Jim Gilbert was in
attendance), Gerry Hans, Bernadette Soter, Valerie Vannerman, Lynn Brown, Jeff
Gardener, Louis Alvarado, Wendy Triplett. Richard Bogy was absent. Acting
Assistant General Manager Kevin Regan facilitated the meeting.
. Old Business
Follow-up discussion on membership of the Working Group was concluded with the direction to
Recreation and Parks staff to formally invite a representative of the Griffith Trust to sit on the
Working Group, if the Trust so wished. Otherwise, the constituency of the Working Group is set
at this time.
Working Group members discussed the various Park planning background documents made
available as requested and determined to forward a list to Recreation and Parks of the materials
which should be copied for all Working Group members. Members also had an interest in
pertinent elements of the City’s General Plan (Open Space and Public Facilities as it relates to
parks and recreation) which the Council office committed to supply.
Recreation and Parks was also able to obtain from storage at the offices of draft Master Plan
contractor, Melendrez, all original Community Workshop Materials as well as all materials
connected with a report done as a Leisure Studies class project through Cal State Northridge, and
the final Northridge report. Working Group members and the public expressed an interest in
viewing these documents at a Saturday open house session, to be set up by Recreation and Parks,
and were generally pleased to note that the materials were still extant. An interest in digitally
archiving materials was discussed.
. Draft Plan Chapter Review
Note: Points of Recommendation for addition or correction to the Draft Griffith Park Master Plan will be noted as
Working Group Recommendation or WGR.
Chapter review of the draft Plan was prefaced by comments about the title and acknowledgments
page, with note that the impression of collaboration and input by many of the entities in the
acknowledgments was overstated and misleading.
WGR: Upon publication of a future draft, acknowledgments must be reflective of actual,
meaningful participation.
WGR: The preface will need to incorporate the Working Group process and any other steps that
may occur prior to re-draft.
• 1. Introduction
In discussion, Working Group members found information on the Park’s history, and on the prior
Master Plan efforts, to be useful background, however those facts should be validated. General
concern surfaced repeatedly on the issues of development and commercialization, and
suggestions of additional background to be included that would inform recommendations later in
the Plan.
WGR: Include more coverage of Griffith’s views of the Park and his intentions for its use,
including his views on development and facilities in the Park.
WGR: Analyze the trend in ratio of developed acres versus open space acres in the Park over the
century of Park history; provide analysis of the impacts on the Park of various developments over
time.
• 2. Vision (Objectives)
The core issue of the purpose of a master plan, and particularly a Master Plan for Griffith Park,
was a key discussion thread during review of the Vision. Concerns were raised that the Plan was
prepared without first performing a Griffith Park-specific Needs Assessment and/or review of
User Group Interests, and that planning for Griffith Park to meet general regional recreation
needs must be performed in the context of other nearby regional recreational developments (i.e.
Taylor Yards and Cornfields). In that connection, the Northridge study was of interest for
further reading by Working Group members. The draft Plan’s theme for the Park, “Living
Laboratory for Learning,” was seen as vague and suggestive of a more active, interventionist
direction for the Park than was comfortable to many Working Group members. Even that theme
statement was seen as leading to need for financial support, and segueing into recommendations
for corporate and other financial partnerships or relationships that concerned the Working Group.
Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group
Meeting Summary - 2nd Meeting
August 1, 2005
Questions were raised as to whether pressure was being exerted, and from which quarters if so,
for Griffith Park to serve a larger revenue enhancement goal for the City.
Further discussion and additional specific recommendations will come at future meetings.
WGR: Define “Park-wide Arboretum” as used in the Plan and clarify what actions or policies
that entails.
WGR: Provide analysis of alternative recreational resources to serve regional needs, including
other parks in the City of Los Angeles, Burbank and Glendale parks, and Los Angeles Unified
School District cooperative property use, and factor that into goals and objectives regarding
active recreation and sports activities use in Griffith Park.
. Public Comment
During the Public Comment period, members of the audience expanded on the suggestions and
concerns addressed by Working Group members, with a focus on allowing Griffith Park to be
unique among parks in the City and the nation, and adding protections against commercialism.
About forty members of the public attended. Among the comments:
• Supports the open process of the Working Group
• Add information about the Park’s current community partners and analysis of whether
current facilities in the Park are maximized.
• Needs of plants and animals in the Park must be balanced with the needs of people.
The next meeting will be Monday, September 12, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Park Ranger
Auditorium. The regular schedule for meetings will be monthly on the first Monday of the
month, with provision to modify for special circumstances.
The agenda for the next meeting will continue comments on Vision and include discussion on
Education and start on the Built Environment.
Action Items for Recreation and Parks:
1. Distribute requested copies of reference materials to Working Group members.
2. Set up a public review session for the Community Outreach Workshop materials.
3. Provide more readable name plates for Working Group members and provide amplified
sound if possible.
The Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group convened in their inaugural session on Wednesday, July 13, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Park Ranger Station Auditorium. The meeting opened with self-introductions by members of the group, mentioning affiliations, interest, training, and experiences relative to Griffith Park and its constituent facilities and features.
Members, who were appointed jointly by the Councilmember LaBonge and Recreation and Parks’ General Manager Jon Kirk Mukri, in attendance at this meeting were: George Grace, Susan Swan (alternate Lucinda Phillips was in attendance), Craig Kessler, Gerry Hans, Bernadette Soter, Valerie Vannerman, Lynn Brown, Jeff Gardener, Louis Alvarado, Richard Bogy. Acting Assistant General Manager Kevin Regan is facilitator for the Working Group and chaired the meeting.
Mr. Regan outlined various roles and responsibilities relative to the Griffith Park Master Plan,
particularly those of the Working Group:
• Recreation and Parks is eager to receive the input and help of the Working Group, and isMembers, who were appointed jointly by the Councilmember LaBonge and Recreation and Parks’ General Manager Jon Kirk Mukri, in attendance at this meeting were: George Grace, Susan Swan (alternate Lucinda Phillips was in attendance), Craig Kessler, Gerry Hans, Bernadette Soter, Valerie Vannerman, Lynn Brown, Jeff Gardener, Louis Alvarado, Richard Bogy. Acting Assistant General Manager Kevin Regan is facilitator for the Working Group and chaired the meeting.
Mr. Regan outlined various roles and responsibilities relative to the Griffith Park Master Plan,
particularly those of the Working Group:
ultimately responsible for creating a revised draft Master Plan, using input from the
Working Group.
• At this juncture, there is no funding for Melendrez (the consultants who prepared the
draft Plan) to participate in the Working Group meetings or to work on a revised draft;
efforts are on-going to determine how to get additional funding to make revisions, or how
to prepare a re-draft in-house.
• The preliminary timetable for the Working Group is six months to a completed package
of revision recommendations for the draft Plan, but as work commences that timetable
may be modified to meet needs and circumstances. Sub-committees may be formed if
appropriate to study and report on particular topics.
• The Working Group should make decisions by consensus, after a discussion, rather than
through a formal voting process. The Working Group is not governed by the Brown Act,
but meetings are currently planned to be open to the public and allow for public
comments. Mr. Regan will prepare the agenda for meetings.
The opening discussion focused on the composition of the Working Group, the process for
nomination, selection, and appointment of members, and at what point the Group would be
finalized as far as member changes. Key points:
Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group
• A member suggested adding a representative from the Griffith J. Griffith Trust; Group
members debated the possibility that there may be a few other appropriate additions, to insure
the broadest representation, weighed against the concerns that Group size be kept workable
and to establish membership stability so that work proceeds with consistency.
• Also designated for the Working Group by the Councilmember and the General Manager are
Ex Officio members, representing all Griffith Park facilities and various agencies within the
City and in neighboring cities that have a role or interest in Griffith Park; Group members
questioned and discussed to what extent would the ex officio members be involved in
formulating recommendations, inasmuchas they have other formal channels for participating
in the Draft plan and had previous input into the Draft plan.
• Other comments--
-Working Group members all should consider and provide input to the plan in it’s
entirety, and not focus only on special interests.
-Keep attendance of Working Group members and take action to remove or replace
members with high absenteeism.
-Experts in certain specialties (e.g. wildlife corridors), or the Melendrez staff who worked
on the draft Plan may need to be made available for consultation.
-Staff or persons who will be charged with preparing any reports or a revised draft must
be involved in all Working Group meetings.
Background information on the formulation of the 1968 Master Plan (more of a landscape and
design guide) and the 1978 Master Plan, along with an overview of the 1978 plan, was presented.
Recreation and Parks staff also distributed a roster of public comments received so far on the
draft Master Plan, and re-capped a significant interest in a designation of the Park or portions of
the Park as “urban wilderness.” Staff cited use of that designation in the Debs Park Framework
plan, and the Working Group discussed briefly the various interpretations of Master Plan,
Framework Plan, and Specific Plan, as well as the concerns about whether individual facility
plans or the Park Master Plan, should have final governing authority in Park planning matters.
During the Public Comment period, members of the audience expressed their concerns and
comments, many of them relating to the need for openness in the review process, good
communication with the public, and opportunities for continued public input and review going
forward toward production of a re-draft. About twenty members of the public attended.
The next meeting will be Monday, August 1, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Park Ranger
Auditorium. A schedule for future meetings will be discussed at that time. The agenda for the
next meeting will include review of the Vision and Education chapters, and if time allows, a start
on the Built Environment chapter review.
Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group
Action Items for Recreation and Parks:
• Obtain copies of existing master plans, as referenced in the draft Griffith Park Master Plan,
which had been developed previously for each of the facilities in the Park; copies to be at the
next meeting.
• Research with Melendrez (draft Master Plan preparation contractors) the existence of any
remaining raw materials from the three community workshops.
• Post the meeting summaries and agendas, for public information, on the Griffith Park Master
Plan page of the Recreation and Park Internet site.
• Provide name plates for Working Group members.
• Bring a copy of the version Melendrez labeled “Draft - August 2004” for inspection at the
next meeting.
=======================
=====================
Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council
Parks, River and Open Space Committee
ASSETS
Parks, River and Open Space Committee
ASSETS
| Parks Griffith Park Barnsdall Park Recreation Active and Passive Recreation Hiking, Picnicking, Ball Fields Pony Rides, Merry-go-Round, Playgrounds Riding Trails Equestrian Center Tennis, Golf Biking Girls Camp, Boys Camp River - The Los Angeles River Open Space – to be identified (open lots, etc.) Historical Landmarks Mulholland Fountain Griffith Observatory Hollywood Sign |
Areas of Concern Traffic Access Preservation Thoughtful Enhancement Law Enforcement Support Groups Griffith Park Resource Board Equestrian Trails Incorporated Sierra Club Los Feliz Improvement Association Friends of Los Angeles River California Native Plant Association Audubon Society Coalition for Safe Trails Friends of FernDell Hillside Federation |
Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mayor of Los Angeles Los Angeles City Council Department of Recreation and Parks Rangers Department of Transportation Street Maintenance Hollywood United Neighborhood Council Cities of Burbank and Glendale (and adjacent homeowner associations) CalTrans Los Angeles Police Department Los Angeles Fire Department Department of Water and Power Los Angeles County Flood Control Bicycle Advisory Committee May 20, 2003, Committee report |
BACK TO:
GGPNC CALENDAR MAIN COMMITTEE PAGE
TOP OF THIS PAGE GGPNC HOME PAGE EVENTS