Griffith Park draft master plan under review

In 1978 the City of Los Angeles approved a Master Plan for Griffith Park. In 2003, city officials decided that conditions in and around the park warranted the development of a new Master Plan. In the summer of 2003, three public meetings were held to elicit ideas from the public about the future of Griffith Park. The meetings were conducted by the Department of Recreation and Parks and Melendrez Group, the consultants hired to begin drafting the new Master Plan. Hundreds attended these public meetings.

In March 2005, the City issued a draft Master Plan. The draft contained numerous projects including aerial tramways, multi-story parking facilities, an 'eco hotel,' a 'Pleasure Pier' across the L.A. River, relocation of the merry-go-round, and ball fields on the Toyon Vista landfill. There was an immediate public outcry against the draft because of these proposed projects, which had never been considered in the earlier public meetings.

Hikers in particular were offended by language in the draft that blamed them for erosion in the park. The draft recommends that 'all unofficial trails should be closed and the closures enforced.' The draft also contains a map of 'official trails' that leaves out dozens of trails that hikers have used for decades.

The Recreation and Parks Department set up a system for the public to comment on the draft master plan by regular mail or by email. Hundreds of comments were received, almost all negative. The department summarized the responses and made summaries available to the public.

After the initial public response, Councilman Tom LaBonge, whose district includes Griffith Park, established a working group to publicly evaluate the draft and make recommendations on its content. The working group consists of 11 individuals who represent neighborhood councils, equestrians, golfing, environmental concerns, and other interest groups. While a few members of the working group happen to be Sierra Club members, the Club is not officially represented on the working group.

The working group has met monthly since last summer, with all meetings open to the public. The first session was devoted to the introductory sections of the draft, which instantly sparked lively debates. Of immediate concern was a page titled 'Prepared with the assistance of,' followed by a listing of organizations including the Sierra Club. Working group members felt that this page implied that the listed entities approved of or at least were involved in preparing the draft, which they said was not the case. Questions arose about the intent to implement 'a community-based of partnerships including financial partnerships...,' and the recommendation to 'increase Park revenues and capture revenues generated by Park users.' Working group members and public citizens expressed concern over the proposal that Griffith Park should be a 'revenue generator.'

Subsequent working group meetings have focused on individual chapters and also on specific recommendations for capital projects. In August the Central and Verdugo Hills Groups of the Angeles Chapter voted to oppose the draft master plan. A resolution prepared by the Central Group was forwarded to and approved by the Chapter Conservation Committee. The Chapter Executive Committee adopted the resolution of opposition in September.

On Jan. 9, the working group listened to a lengthy presentation by the Melendrez Group, followed by questions from the working group and then questions from the public. LaBonge opened the meeting and remained actively engaged for the duration of the meeting. John Mukri, General Manager of the Department of Recreation and Parks, also made some opening remarks.

The Melendrez Group defended the draft and the proposed capital projects, admitting that they had anticipated that some proposals, like the aerial tramways, would be controversial. They said that the choice of terminology, like eco-hotel and pleasure pier, was unfortunate because it implied a higher scale of activity than they envisioned for those projects. A key point of contention was the existence of a needs assessment. The Melendrez Group said that the needs assessment was an outcome of the three public meetings held in 2003. Several members of the working group and the public questioned this assertion, and repeatedly called for a true needs assessment, not just for Griffith Park, but for the entire city. Working group members said that the draft should have focused on low-cost, low-intensity improvements (such as upgrading and re-striping existing parking areas).

The working group and some members of the public discussed the concept of an 'urban wilderness' which would protect the currently undeveloped areas of Griffith Park from all commercialization and development. Thousands of petitions calling for the creation of an 'urban wilderness' have been submitted to the Recreation and Parks Department. Some felt that the draft process should be terminated entirely and the focus of the work group should be shifted to the 'urban wilderness' concept. LaBonge pled that the master plan process continue. He said the work group should take the draft, line out objectionable items, add their own preferred recommendations, and let the process continue. After finalization of the draft, a final plan would be made public for review, followed by an environmental review process, LaBonge suggested. The final master plan would then go to the Recreation and Parks Commission for adoption, then to the City Council for implementation.

On Jan. 17, a special meeting of the Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee of the City Council was held. This committee is chaired by LaBonge. Two items relevant to the Griffith Park Master Plan were discussed and approved. One called for updates to the council on the progress of the draft. A second directed the Recreation and Parks Department 'to include in the final Griffith Park Master Plan requirements that the interior of the park remain a natural area' restricted from development. At the suggestion of the Sierra Club, LaBonge agreed that the definition and boundaries of any such 'natural area' should be debated and determined by the working group.

The schedules and agendas of the working group are posted online.