Here's what Save Griffith Park web site has to say about the January 9th Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group Meeting...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-12-06
We suspect that the Melendrez presentation at the January 9th Griffith
Park Draft Master Plan Working Group meeting did not turn out the way
RAP envisioned. Instead, those of us present learned that the
consultants had little meaningful experience in planning for a major
park, had not studied user needs or reached out to the public after the
initial workshops, and had no control over what made it into the Draft
released on March 30th, (quote: "It was up to the Councilman."). We also
learned that there was a six month gap between their completion of the
Draft slugged "Second Draft, October 2004" and its unveiling. No one
could account for this delay. No one could explain why a draft had
preceeded the document released to the public.
We learned that:
1. The consultants were out of their league in accepting the assignment
and by their own admission, were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the
project. The closest they had come previously to planning for a large
park was their partial involvement with Exposition Park. In terms of
planning, Exposition is a train wreck. Its grounds have been nearly
obliterated by a jumble of facilities -- each fine on its own -- but
their accretion over the years has eaten away the park itself. Trees and
open space have become an afterthought, which is exactly what will
happen to Griffith Park if the public doesn't regain control of its future.
2. The consultants said that the Master Plan development project budget
of $400,000 was too low to finance ongoing outreach to the public. Many
sitting in the audience and on the Working Group panel, however, knew
that during the almost two years that the Draft was being compiled, they
had endeavored to place their time and knowledge at the consultants'
disposal and been denied. Even if the price of a return call was too
high, RAP's paid staff could have met with community groups and passed
on their input. Nevertheless, on the Draft's title pages, numerous
community groups are listed as having "assisted" in its preparation,
when both the consultants and RAP know this is not the case.
3. The consultants said that the parameters of their engagement were
defined so narrowly as to make it impossible to develop a plan worthy of
the Park. We were told, among other things, that no needs assessment
was conducted at any level and that they were specifically told not to
review, factor in or on any level attempt to integrate their work with
the five completed or pending master plan projects involving the five
major venues located in the Park. Before moving on, it should be noted
that in Fall 2004 Cal State University at Northridge conducted a survey
of Griffith Park recreational users whose findings affirmed the
consensus in favor of preserving and greening the Park that arose from
the June 2003 Master Plan public workshops. This study was not used in
preparing the Draft.
The presentation on January 9th did not dispel the clouds of mistrust
surrounding the Draft. Perhaps that is why Councilmember LaBonge has
precipitously introduced two Motions regarding the Working Group and the
public's Urban Wilderness initiative that could possibly impact the
progress being made: the latter will empower RAP, not the public to
define the protected areas, in the Park. They will be presented at a
Special Meeting of The Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee of the
City Council on Tuesday morning at 8:30 a.m. and it would be wise to be
there. See the Meetings page at www.SaveGriffithPark.org for more details.
