MIDNIGHT AT THE OASIS
Activists accuse the city of conspiring with developers on plans to build a hotel, pier, tramways, a
A December meeting to discuss the future of Griffith Park decayed into a round of accusations when activists alleged the city was promoting major park development in defiance of a city-endorsed master-plan process. Members of the Griffith Park Working Group, which has been providing input on a park master plan, accused the Los Angeles City Department of Recreation and Parks of conspiring with developers to push for improvements originally included in the plan, like new parking structures, aerial trams, a hotel, and a culinary school.
"There are no behind-the-scenes smoke-filled rooms," insisted Kevin Regan, the assistant general manager of Recreation and Parks.
"No, it's brazen," shot back Bernadette Soter, a Working Group member. "You aren't behind the scenes, I'll admit that."
Recreation and Parks tried to downplay the acrimony. "I think there should be spirited debate about the subject," said Jon Kirk Mukri, the head of the department, in a phone interview the day after the meeting. But the subject of the debate no longer appears to be about what the future of Griffith Park should be, but who has the power to draft the master plan.
The city is currently engaged in the third historic master-planning process for the park, the city's largest parcel of open space. Similar master plans were created in 1968 and 1978 to guide the creation of exhibits, ballfields, and gardens. In October 2004, a city-contracted design firm called Melendrez and Associates presented a new draft master plan to the city and Councilman Tom LaBonge, which was meant to guide the next 25 years of park life. Opposition to the plan was immediate after it was discovered at a March 2005 public meeting that proposed improvements included two aerial trams, a sports complex on the old Toyon landfill site, a culinary school, a hotel, a restaurant, a so-called "Pleasure Pier" on the L.A. River, widening of many roads, and six parking structures.
Most of these items remain in the current draft of the plan, much to the outrage of local activists. LaBonge helped create the Master Plan Working Group, a coalition of homeowners associations, environmentalists, equestrian groups and concerned citizens who, according to LaBonge, were included to give "recommendations" to the plan. Most of their recommendations have been to stop or greatly curtail any further development. An activist campaign called Save Griffith Park has been circulating a petition to ensure that the master plan "establish an Urban Wilderness in Griffith Park protecting its remaining open spaces," which now has over 10,000 signatures from 300 zip codes.
The frustration of the Working Group stems from confusion about its role in revising the development-heavy draft. Many group members believed the changes they made to the master plan would be final. Some members asked if they had been mistaken about the group's function.
"Are we just an advisory group?" asked Lynn Brown. Bernadette Soter argued that there should be no confusion, citing an e-mail from Mukri saying the Working Group's "input was binding" for the master plan.
But Regan disputed that notion, calling the group's draft of the plan simply "a policy paper," to be taken into consideration along with the original draft, and the input of the community.
The Working Group has changed the intent of the original master plan, focusing on maintaining Griffith Park as an "urban wilderness," and scrapping major development.
LaBonge, for his part, has also come out in opposition to some parts of the plan, including "commercialization of the park" - the hotel, restaurant, culinary school, Pleasure Pier, new roads, tram to Toyon Canyon, and any new overhead power lines. He has made a point of backing new public transport to the park and the replacement of baseball fields lost when Interstate 5 was expanded.
To Mukri, however, the Griffith Park master plan is meant to be a "vision for the future," he said. "This master plan cannot be acted upon - you can't put in parking structures just because there is a plan."
The plan does not legally mandate what will be built in the park. There is no budget, no source of funding, and no contracts have been signed. But at the latest meeting, audience comments revealed a concern that the department is using the Working Group to appease the community while pushing ahead for development. "I hope this is not simply a Kabuki theater performance," said one audience member. Another scolded Regan for "not having any answers" for the Working Group's questions.
The group is also concerned that Melendrez and Associates, the consulting firm behind the original master plan, has been presenting its draft at several private events. The company spoke about the plan at a $50-per-person breakfast meeting of the Westside Urban Forum, an organization of real estate developers, on December 16. The Urban Forum website called the plan "hotly contested" and also raised questions about the eventual impact or meaning of the master-plan process.
The Westside Urban Forum event alarmed some group members. "My animosity towards the department is that suddenly [Melendrez] is out about town presenting their draft plans to a variety of groups, at least one of which is heavily development-oriented," said Valerie Vannerman, speaking before the December 16 event.
Soter, who was invited by the Urban Forum to speak along with representatives from Melendrez, environmental groups, and the Department of Recreation and Parks, declined to speak because she felt that by attending the event, she would be "creating the public impression that that document was still alive to be debated."
Regan had also suggested inviting Melendrez to speak before the Working Group, which heightened suspicions for some Working Group members that Melendrez would have interests in future development. "I've dealt with a lot of contractors and they don't usually show up and speak for free," said one member.
Both Melendrez and Recreation and Parks deny having a contract to produce a final draft of the master plan, although Melendrez does have an on-call contract with the city agreeing to provide plans on request. "We have totally exhausted our Griffith Park contract," said Melani Smith, of Melendrez and Associates.
While Soter calls the Melendrez draft "cooked" and suggests it should be off the table, Regan insisted Recreation and Parks did not intend "to throw the draft in the garbage."
Recreation and Parks has yet to answer whether the drafts are binding, or how the process toward a final plan should unfold. The document apparently must be approved by Recreation and Parks and by the City Council. Mukri insisted that Griffith Park "will always be dedicated park land." But does that include aerial tramways and parking structures?
Published: 01/04/2006
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT
