New 'Griffith Park Park Advisory Board' named, process is suspect

Park Advisory Boards and their members are essential to the overall operation of a recreation facility. The Department of Recreation and Parks believes that the partnership between staff and the community is of primary importance in identifying and meeting the recreational needs of the community. A Park Advisory Board works to make facilities safe, clean, and hospitable while offering guidance and assistance on programming and fundraising.

A Park Advisory Board member must be a community stakeholder and understand the community’s needs and interests. A member should support park improvements and help establish goals for the park. A member should also assist with special events and fundraising for park improvements. All PAB members are selected by the Department of Recreation and Parks staff.

- from Rec and Parks'  Park Advisory Board handbook

First off, let me state that I did apply for this Park Advisory Board (PAB). I knew I would not be named - if you don't know why I knew this, then you clearly don't read this blog often enough.  :-)   I have some longstanding familiarity with the Dept. of Recreation and Parks' PAB system. The main reason I applied is to observe this particular process by being part of it.

Initially there were approximately 20 people who applied to be on this PAB by the published deadline. There were then two days of interviews. Those who applied had a choice of 1 of 2 days in which to schedule the interview. 

Then, mysteriously, at least another one or two days of interviews after the deadline took place, after the initial interviews.

So who actually applied by the deadline? And, how many of those appointed were likely solicited by someone to apply after the official deadline? How many of those were chosen for the PAB? (probably most of them.)


It's worth noting that any PAB is all about the RECREATION.  In fact, PABs are typically associated with a specific Rec Center. Wildlife and environment is not part of the main mission of these boards.

With that in mind, Griffith Park deserves a WASC as well as a PAB.  A WASC is  a Wildlife Areas Steering Committee.  Sepulveda Basin has a longstanding WASC.  I hope environment-minded groups like the Sierra Club - who, glaringly, has no members on this PAB - step up and demand equal time with a WASC for Griffith Park.

Each potential member must .... Be the only representative from an outside organization serving on the PAB.

         - from Rec and Parks'  Park Advisory Board handbook

With this in mind, who was chosen for the Griffith Park PAB?

We're not 100% certain who all these people are exactly as of yet, but the names are correct as provided by the department. Where there is a question about identity, we've marked it with a question mark.

1. Don Seligman - Treasurer of the Los Feliz Improvement Association.
2. Ann Marie Johnson - Most recently but not currently Tom LaBonge's field deputy; recent Silverlake Neighborhood Council board member.
3. Barbara Ferris - Board member of the Neighborhood Council Formerly Called Greater Griffith Park; Symphony in the Glen managing director who has a project in Griffith Park and derives income from activities in the park; Los Feliz Improvement Association board member.
4. Chip Clements - likely? the Chip Clements who is the owner of Clements Environmental Corp; affiliated with the Hollywoodland Homeowners Association.
5. Jerry Petryha - likely? a disability lawyer of the same name from Encino.
6. Ted Johnson - possibly? a writer at Variety by the same name who covers Tom LaBonge's antics.
7. Alex Chavez - recent Hollywoodland Homeowners Association president.
8. Chris Laib - Current president of the Los Feliz Improvement Association.
9. Laura Howe - Friends of Griffith Park volunteer coordinator.
10. Janell Mullen - likely? an Urban Planner and program manager with the Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative.
11. Kris Sullivan - likely? another Hollywoodland Homeowners Association member.
12. Lynn Brown - Los Angeles Equine Advisory Board.
13. Susan Swan - Hollywood United Neighborhood Council; Oaks resident almost 30 years.
14. Susan Lee - likely? the Former CEO, Korean Munhwa Broadcasting Company and current National Director of Urban Peace at The Advancement Project California.
15. Lucinda Phillips - Longtime Oaks Resident; Friends of Fern Dell.

Looking at the selections, in all honesty I have never seen a park advisory board made up of people who are either employees of or directors of so many special interests and agencies who make money in development-type activities. Typically a park advisory board is made up of neighbors, park volunteers, and a few individuals who have either concessions or facilities in the park itself.

There is also the issue of the requirement quoted above that says just one member of an outside organization can serve on the board.  I count at least three from the Los Feliz Improvement Association, and at least three from the Hollywoodland Homeowners Association.

And then there is the irregularity with the process. This particular irregularity smells of the modus operandi of a certain City Councilmember, doesn't it?  No surprise there.

Meanwhile...

Lawsuit announced at Heritage Tree event

More than one hundred tree lovers came to the Friends of Griffith Park's Heritage Sycamore event on Saturday. Friends board member Gerry Hans announced that Friends along with the Griffith J. Griffith Trust will indeed be filing a lawsuit on the laughable Crystal Springs Little League fields EIR approved by City Hall. It's very sad that Angelenos are forced to sue their own government to force them to obey the law, but recently it seems that this is becoming all too common.

Given the heat on Saturday which topped out in triple digits by early afternoon, this many at a Saturday event is a great turn out! The news about the lawsuit made it all worthwhile. If you would like to support this lawsuit, you can go to the the Friends of Griffith Park's web site and join the organization or maybe PayPal them a little extra love if you are already a member.

Courtesy Friends of Griffith Park

Text of the announcement:

The Griffith J. Griffith Charitable Trust and Friends of Griffith Park will file a lawsuit this week against the City of Los Angeles to stop the construction of ball fields at these four acres of Crystal Springs Picnic Facility. The petition will claim that alternative sites and mitigation were not properly considered.

In reality, this particular location for the ball fields was pre-determined from the start. Other alternatives never had a chance. It was the responsibility of the City to consider all alternatives seriously, including the idea of separating the two ball fields into two separate locations.

Having the two fields here in Crystal Springs produces SIGNIFICANT adverse impacts to the biological resources of this area. It produces SIGNIFICANT adverse impacts to the aesthetics of these historic picnic grounds. Those were the results of the City’s own CEQA findings, not ours.

The project is moving forward any way, after our Commission signed-off on a STATEMENT OF OVER-RIDING CONSIDERATIONS regarding the adverse impacts without even batting an eye.

The project is moving forward any way, after our City Council denied our APPEAL to the CEQA findings.

Do we really need to play ball in court? Maybe so.

Kid-friendly event this Saturday to view rare, giant Los Angeles tree slated for destruction

"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues." ~ Dr. Seuss (1904 - 1991), The Lorax

Take a good, long look at this amazing 200 year old tree.  Compare the size of this giant to the people standing beneath its branches in the picture below.

We don't have trees like this in Los Angeles, or do we?  In fact, we do. You can see this giant heritage sycamore in Griffith Park!

But not for long.  If you would like to marvel at the majesty of this original LA River giant, I recommend you go see it at a kid-friendly event this Saturday, because this tree will soon be gone -- destroyed to add two more special interest Little League fields in Crystal Springs where another already exists and goes unused most of the year. The new ballfields are Councilmember Tom LaBonge's "gift" to you before he leaves office.

Visit this giant firsthand this Saturday before it's gone for good  - event details follow below.... way below this giant tree.

From Friends of Griffith Park:

Please join us at the Heritage Sycamore Tree in the Crystal Springs Picnic Area on Saturday, September 13th at 10:00 am.

The Heritage Sycamore is one of the trees the City may remove in order to build ball fields so we're gathering to respect the importance of this and all trees in the Crystal Springs area.

Our goal is for at least 200 of us to gather, one person for each year of the tree's life.

Photojournalists will be on hand to document the event. This will be FUN! Friends of Griffith Park will provide water and soft drinks.

Please bring your enthusiasm and help us spread the word. The more the merrier!

 Kids of all ages are welcome!

“Great Horror Campout” - vulgar sanctioned abuse of a park system's gem

Is Griffith Park a emerging"Disneyland", or is it an Urban Wilderness Park? 

Lame duck Councilmember Tom LaBonge eats away at remaining habitat with this childish self-indulgence by loading it onto a fragile ecosystem of Griffith Park - a park that, to quote Labonge himself, is "the heart and lungs of Los Angeles."

Originally published by the Sierra Club.
 --------------------------------------

THE “GREAT HORROR CAMPOUT” IS A HORROR INDEED
by Carol Henning

Classy stuff.

The perpetrators of commercial exploitation simply cannot leave Griffith Park alone. Are you weary of reading articles about the ongoing campaign to use the park as a venue for tawdry spectacles that rake in profits for private business while inconveniencing the public? Then tell them to stop!

The Great Horror Campout is the latest money-making scheme of Ten-Thirty-one productions, the company that brought Haunted Hayride to the park. The Campout seems to be a longer, nastier version of the Hayride. It debuts at the Old Zoo June 6th and 7th and then goes nationwide this summer. “Only the dawning sun will save you,” cackles the Campout website. “CAMP AT YOUR OWN RISK,” it warns. “This camps [sic] only desire is to ruin you!” It lasts all night, during which time you will be chased by scary clowns (Last year they rode motorcycles.), ax-wielding rednecks, and the chupacabra (whatever they are). Campout patrons must agree to be “forcibly handled, moved, bound, hooded, chained and subjected to simulated torture” by the Campout cast of monsters. Writing about her fun experience at last year’s Campout, a young woman told Yelp that she got hooded and put in the van, put in a cage, locked in a trunk, trapped by a mothman, forced to get on her knees multiple times and made to break off a man’s finger. Gosh, can you think of a jollier way to spend a night? Another positive review praised the event for being “bloody, gross and loud.”

Some negative reviews called the Campout a “total ripoff; no scares.” Much of the criticism was aimed at the food served (The price included dinner and a sort of breakfast). It turns out the food was “all vegan and very gross.” One of last year’s patrons huffed: “This is why the rest of the country thinks L.A. is full of new age hippy freaks.” Not to worry. This year’s buffet dinner is being catered by Susan Feniger and Kajsa Alger of Street and Mud Hen Tavern. Mark Cuban’s $2 million dollar investment will make this year’s event a bit more up-market than the one last year, which was held near Chinatown. Campers complained about the dirt lot with few trees and about downtown lights, which made total darkness impossible.

Eager for an opportunity to better please patrons and to raise prices, Ten-Thirty-one Productions cast covetous eyes on Griffith Park’s Old Zoo area, the site of their yearly Haunted Hayride. As usual, the L.A. Parks Foundation, the City’s Department of Recreation and Parks Commissioners, and probably a certain City Councilmember, rolled out the (blood) red carpet of welcome to Ten-Thirty-one Productions. Thus, another event celebrating the violent, the bloody and the gross gets inflicted on Griffith Park. If the Hell Hunt, which involves some bathing in blood, a sacrificial voodoo ritual, and digging through road kill, along with being hooded and chained, appeals to someone you know, potential patrons can rent a two-person tent for $223 per person or a four-person tent for $159 per person. Organizers expect 400-500 attendees. There are special “Chicken Zones” for timid folks who want to camp at the Old Zoo but do not want to be dragged about by monsters. The Campout website promises that, if wimps cannot take anymore, they can shout “I WANT MY MOMMY,” and “the nightmare will end.”

And so realistic.

It is fun to write about bad taste, but the point of the story is this: The Great Horror Campout will occupy the Old Zoo, which has been designated a “wilderness area” within a City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument. Aren’t such landmarks supposed to be shown some respect? In 2008, The Griffith Family Trust proposed Historic-Cultural Monument status for the whole park. This was supported by the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter as well as other environmental and community groups. What do the wilderness designation and monument status mean to Ten-Thirty-one Productions and to people willing to pay more than $200 for a “bloody, gross, loud” night? Probably nothing.

In April, an Earth Day event was held in Griffith Park to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act. L.A. City Councilmember Tom LaBonge gave a speech. L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti gave a speech about the value of wilderness. Griffith Park is an urban wilderness. In spite of its location in the middle of L.A.’s highly urbanized landscape, the park is home to large mammals, including mule deer, fox, coyotes, bobcats and one mountain lion. That is the thing about wilderness; it is not empty. It provides habitat for plants and animals. The hills above the Old Zoo are full of birds, bats and bunnies. They are one of only a couple places in the park where gray fox can be found. How will the resident animals be affected by strobe lights and sudden loud noises? At last year’s Campout, patrons who had dozed off in their tents were awakened at 4:30 a.m. by blasting music. Imagine having your rest or your night hunting and foraging interrupted by shrieking humans, “sudden loud noises” and “flashing lights.” But, who cares about traumatized wildlife when there is money to be made? Shame on the public officials who sell out Griffith Park so readily.

A quick look at the Big Picture should remind us that human beings are only a strand in the web of life on this planet. We depend on other animals, on plants, on air, on water. Until we value these more than we value a fist full of dollars, we will continue to destroy the world that sustains us.
...

If you would like to remind public officials of the consequences of their venal behavior, here are some names and addresses: 

Mayor Eric Garcetti
Room 303, Los Angeles City Hall
200 North Spring St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
mayor@lacity.org

Councilmember Tom LaBonge
Room 480, Los Angeles City Hall
200 North Spring St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
councilmember.labonge@lacity.org

Lynn Alvarez, President
Los Angeles City Recreation and Parks Department
Board of Commissioners
221 N. Figueroa St., Suite 1510
Los Angeles, CA 90012
rap.commissioners@lacity.org

CEQA Appeals filed on EIR approvals for Crystal Springs, Old Zoo projects

Finally! 

No press releases yet that we know of, but the Griffith Family Trust, Friends of Griffith Park, and the Sierra Club Griffith Park Chapter have filed CEQA appeals on two EIRs  - one for more Crystal Springs baseball fields, and on the Old Zoo Performance Stage. Both were naively approved by the Mayor's new Recreation and Parks Commission last month.

You can read the appeals here (Crystal Springs) and here (Old Zoo).

Will Arts Parks Health Aging and River Committee chair Mitch O' Farrell even hear these appeals?

If, and when may depend upon just how dedicated he is to his great friend, Tom LaBonge. Should be interesting.

If the Public gives up

"The only way LaBonge gets to gut the picnic area is if the public gives up."

I hope the part of "the Public" who has the resources to file lawsuits on the EIR for this project understands this.

Screen shot of Mr. Abram's learned commentary to a CityWatch article regarding Tom LaBonge's proposed gutting of the Crystal Springs picnic area for more baseball fields:

Friends of Griffith Park baseball fields presser lacks

New press release from the Friends of Griffith Park opposing yet more ballfields in Crystal Springs is below.

It's pretty lightweight, quite honestly.  The loud, pro-Crystal Springs nuts claim incorrectly that those opposed to the project in Crystal Springs are NIMBYs who don't want ballfields anywhere in Griffith Park, period. 

A stronger, more strategic statement from the Friends -- themselves constant targets of the nuts in question -- would have included likely support for this project if it were located at Ferraro Fields which is in Griffith Park and far better suited to the use.

The Mayor's newly-appointed Recreation and Parks Commission appointees don't dare challenge this project and will easily pass Councilmember LaBonge's legacy project at their April 2nd meeting. Then, hopefully, come the lawsuits against an unresponsive and very weak EIR.

Yet more problems with new ballfields if built in Crystal Springs

This is from a public comment letter to Recreation and Parks Commissioners by a recently retired Park Ranger with nearly 3 decades on the job. Someone who spent almost every day on the job in Crystal Springs, where the Ranger Station is located.

Their concerns are not addressed in the EIR, and their concerns evaporate if this project is built in Ferraro.

These are those concerns:

The Crystal Springs Picnic areas are among the most heavily used areas in Griffith Park and are already filled to capacity on many weekends.

The ball field project would remove a large portion of the picnic grounds from public use. The circular road system that is there now replaced a cul de sac system which was abandoned in the 1970s because of severe traffic impacts. The ball field project would recreate the cul de sac system - it didn't work then and it won't work now due to severe traffic impacts.

The destruction of so many mature heritage trees is unthinkable.

In addition, the (Park) Ranger fire station is located in this area and this project will certainly impact emergency response times if it does not cause relocation of the facility. ...

But go ahead, Councilmember LaBonge - shove your legacy project into Crystal Springs anyway.

Van Griffith's opposition to locating new ballfields in Crystal Springs

As it stands now, Councilmember Tom LaBonge and his supporters are determined to go against much of the park-going public and displace hundreds of predominantly Latino families because he is unwilling to change the location of his own legacy project.

Worse yet,  LaBonge is willing to go against the wishes of the very family that gave Los Angeles both Griffith Park and the Griffith Observatory for the same reason.

How ugly is that?

Councilmember, put your project in Ferraro, where most people - including the Griffith Family - agree it should be.

Ballfields, Bandshell projects impacting Griffith Park to be voted on Wednesday

Update: these items are continued to the April 2nd Commission meeting. Keep sending in your public comment on these items. Link is below. 
---

On Wednesday March 5th April 2nd, the newly appointed Recreation and Parks Commission will be voting on two boutique projects from Councilmember Tom LaBonge to potentially be constructed in Griffith Park:

1. More ballfields at Crystal Springs picnic area, and

2. New Performing Arts Center (aka the Bandshell) in the Old Zoo picnic area.

If you haven't recently weighed in to the Recreation and Parks Commission on your opinion about these projects, you can do so by emailing the commission with your public comment here.


New Performing Arts Center:

This project is the baby of close LaBonge supporter and Symphony in the Glen director, Barbara Ferris. Ms. Ferris ran for the board of the Neighborhood Council Formerly Called Greater Griffith Park primarily to see this through, among other things.

The Old Zoo area is an active wildlife corridor. Per the Cultural Heritage designation for Griffith Park, this project is located within the Urban Wilderness boundary, where, ostensibly, construction is to be done only if absolutely necessary. Is this project necessary?


New Baseball fields:

Since we last discussed this project,  a number of things have become clear in recent weeks:

Pote Field on a normal day.

• The Atwater alternative was never a serious alternative location.

• There were more public comments on the EIR opposing this train wreck than supporting it.

• Councilmember LaBonge was originally determined to place his ballfields at the top of Toyon Canyon - in the interior wildlife area and where the roads are currently closed in the park. He was later forced to move the project, and chose Crystal Springs. There are already underused baseball fields located at Crystal Springs (called Pote Field). Clearly, then, moving the project hasn't been exactly verboten in the past.

• The Griffith Trust - whose board includes Van Griffith - opposes this project and would support it if relocated to Ferraro Fields, where there is plenty of room to not displace any stakeholder group.

• The current predominant stakeholder group at Crystal Springs - the group who will be displaced by this project - is predominantly Latino families who are essentially picnicking, holding birthday parties, and other passive uses. Recently, the propaganda machine around this project has been at work claiming that this is not true.
  
  The propaganda machine is absolutely incorrect: ask anyone without a dog in the fight who actually visits Crystal Springs regularly on a nice day. I've been at Crystal Springs a couple hundred times over the past ten years for various reasons, and the consistent user group is definitely predominantly Latino families picnicking.  Most weekends, because it is so popular, Crystal Springs is completely impacted - finding any parking for anything in the area is insanely difficult.This project displaces a majority of these users, plain and simple.

• A couple of weeks ago, LaBonge aide Carolyn Ramsay popped in to a Rec and Parks Commission subcommittee to discuss her boss's project, opening with (paraphrase): 'The Councilman has wanted this his whole life'.  And that right there constitutes the entire needs assessment on this project.

• Finally, would the councilmember still want the project if it were at Ferraro Fields rather than Crystal Springs? Ferraro is also used by a predominantly Latino user group, but there is plenty of room to add ball fields without displacing anyone.

So why weren't the Ferraro Fields part of the EIR as an alternative site for this project? Why is Ferraro Fields verboten?

Two possible reasons flow out of all of the information and disinformation surrounding this project. One is that the area is already named for the late, great John Ferraro, so the "Tom LaBonge Ballfields at Ferraro Fields" ain't gonna cut it.

The other is much more unfortunate: Who is being displaced at Crystal Springs? Who is the dominant stakeholder group at Ferraro Fields - a stakeholder group that would not be displaced but would remain if the project was moved there?  The potential implication is ugly, but cannot be ignored.


The new Recreation and Parks Commission will likely pass both these boutique projects through for the outgoing Councilmember LaBonge and his close supporter, but the public record - and the questions - will remain.

Tell City Hall: "Optimum Investment" Park Ranger option is the only reasonable option

Update 2/10/14:  At the APHAR Committee meeting, Recreation and Parks reported that they are putting just four new Rangers into the 2014-15 budget and no mention of a Chief Ranger.  Three positions are already open due to retirements so Rec and Parks is in reality adding just one new Park Ranger in their 2014-15 budget if nothing changes.

Meanwhile, the preponderance of the public comment both sent in via email and in person requested that the APHAR Committee choose the Optimum Investment option. The APHAR Committee made no recommendation but asked for a report-back from the CAO (who just loves Rec and Parks) on the cost of each option in 60 days, which is only a week or so before Recreation and Parks submits their budget for 2014-15.
---


The Dept of Recreation and Parks has released their final report on the current status of the Park Ranger Division.  The City Council's Arts Parks Health Aging and River Committee will be discussing this report Monday at 2pm in Room 1060 at City Hall.  (agenda item 7)

If you've kept up with any of the information about our City of Los Angeles Park Rangers published here and at Mayor Sam over the years, you won't be surprised that the situation is bleak.  Citywide, just twenty-one Park Rangers are left in the City, and more than half of them are grandfathered-in as non-peace officers -- an artifact left over from a crippling union agreement more than a decade ago.  There is no Chief Ranger in spite of the position being required by California POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training), who oversees peace officer agencies and training in this state.

The final Park Ranger status report being presented on Monday provides three different tiers of investment that City Council could select that would bring the Park Ranger Division back to a level of health and effectiveness:  

• Optimum Investment
• Modest Investment
• Minimum Investment

Only the Optimum Investment will cover all of our larger Regional parks including Hansen Dam Recreational Area, which has a new Ranger Station and no Rangers. The cost of the Optimum Investment is just four times the current barely-breathing cost of the Park Ranger Division.


Is the Optimum Investment Option worth it?

When initially created in 2005, the Office of Public Safety had a budget of $21-$25 million, the vast majority of which (they often whined) was devoted directly to parks.  Meaning - as Park Ranger replacements.

Hansen Dam Ranger Station - nobody home.

Creating OPS saved the City $200,000 - $900,000, said the CAO. Within a few years, OPS had already added $7 million more to their budget, and I wrote about in my first article for the Mayor Sam blog. More additional funding demands followed and were granted.

Again, OPS's budget was mostly for patrolling parks, as they constantly reminded anyone listening. 

The Park Ranger position historically grew directly from the day-to-day needs in our parks. Park Rangers do 80% more job duties than Office of Public Safety officers.

Park Rangers are professional peace officers, fire fighters, wildlife managers, naturalists, and environmental managers. There is a reason that LA Park Rangers are often hired out of the department to become Emergency Management coordinators all across the City:  Rangers are professional multi-disciplinarians, giving them a broad world view other single-disciplined professionals do not have.

So in comparison, OPS at it's peak (optimum?) had a budget of over $34 million* , most of which was for parks.  Their officers did only 20% of the job duties Parks Rangers do for our parks.  Our City Council and Mayor felt this was worth investing in.

Park Rangers do 80% more for parks and the Optimum Investment option is $17 million** -- half the cost of OPS.

The analysis is pretty clear.

City Council should do the right thing: choose the Optimum Investment option.



Make your voice heard!

You can demand the Optimum Investment option by attending the Arts, Parks, Health, Aging and River Committee meeting this Monday at 2pm in Room 1060, or by emailing the City Clerk with your public comment before Monday.

Be certain you write on your comment that it is for two different files:

1. APHAR Committee meeting 2/10/14 - Agenda Item 7, and
2. Council File 12-0899-S1


* = not including indirect costs. Indirect costs are roughly an additional 45%
** = including indirect costs.

Final EIR on Crystal Springs project is out

... and page 23 says it all:  NO PROJECT has by far the least amount of impact to the area.  But that's not an option since the intent is to create an impact, of course.

I would like to see the same score sheet with Ferraro Soccer Fields as an alternative. Ferraro - the best solution to this project - was intentionally left out.

Meanwhile, the newly-seated Recreation and Parks Commission will have the final say sometime in March. Lynn Alvarez is the new President of the commission. Although easily confirmed to the commission, Mrs. Blumenfield was not selected president right away as was rumored to be imminent around the water cooler.

Link to full EIR is here. 

Full circle: Griffith Vision Plan loaded with pet projects

UPDATE 1-8-14:

The Commission passed the document as a "Vision" for Griffith Park after a very long discussion as to whether LaBonge's last-minute pet project capital additions now force the document to undergo full CEQA before a vote by the Commission. The Commission reiterated the vote was on a "Vision" and that they were not declaring this a Specific plan or General plan or any other kind of plan.

The Commission also instructed Rec and Parks to return the image of P-22 to the cover of the document.
--------

Tomorrow, at the final meeting of the majority of the board, the Recreation and Parks Commission will vote to approve a new Griffith Park Vision Plan.

This process was originally initiated by an angry public fighting commercialization of the park. Unfortunately, it is painfully clear that the process has again been entirely co-opted by the exact same City Councilmember and is filled with his pet projects.

The very first published article here on Wayist was a July 2009 story about this issue :

According to a letter sent to Master Plan Working Group (GPMPWG) members, the new draft Griffith Park Master Plan is being downgraded to a simple "vision" for the park. Insiders know that this is not a move by the Department of Recreation and Parks (DRP), but is clearly at the behest of Councilman Tom LaBonge. The GPMPWG is expected to review the major edits by the department and LaBonge, and provide a final edit in just two weeks.

Since the document is a vision of a broad based group of community members and developed through a lengthy and very public process, the document certainly qualifies as a true Master Plan. It's a good guess that the attack on the process is being driven by the councilmember since the document does not represent the vision of Tom LaBonge and his developer friends. LaBonge tried to force destination restaurants, pleasure piers, and cable cars into the previous version of the Master Plan. LaBonge's version was resoundingly hated and panned by the public at large.

After nearly 7 8 years, the almost comical reality is that you don't have to read past page 5 of the new version to see that things have sadly come full circle: the very same man has inserted more of his controversial pet legacy projects into this Vision Plan at the 11th hour. Some are as ridiculous as a permanent "Griffith Park Movie Night", some as illegal as building new, unnecessary construction in the Urban Wilderness area (per the historic monument designation.)

The document's cover was also recently changed by someone, adding to the ironic amusement. P-22, the famous Griffith park Mountain Lion, was recently removed from the images.

Now, although the plan boldly proclaims itself as "VISION PLAN FOR GRIFFITH PARK -- AN URBAN WILDERNESS IDENTITY", all of the pictures are of carnival-like rides and the built sections of the park, mocking the overall vision itself.

The Commission will easily pass this nonsense tomorrow as their going-away present to LaBonge.


The one saving grace, if you can believe it, is that this is a Vision Plan and not a Master Plan. The difference?  Supposedly, there are no capital projects in a Vision Plan.

So what happens to the pet capital projects inserted into the Vision Plan by LaBonge? Hopefully, they simply rot.

Comments on the "Crystal Springs Baseball Fields" proposal due Dec 17.

Folks, please weigh in on this project and it's suitability or lack of suitability to this location.

Read the Draft Environmental Impact Report  [DEIR] for this proposed project here.

Then submit your comments one of these ways:

1. Directly via e-mail to  Maria Martin  at  maria.martin@lacity.org   with the SUBJECT LINE: Griffith Park Crystal Springs - Draft EIR


2. By writing to:  City of Los Angeles, Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, Environmental Management Group, 1149 S. Broadway, 6th Floor, Mail Stop 939, Los Angeles, CA 90015-2213

Someone may want to comment on the fact that the DEIR only has three choices:  two at Crystal Springs, and one at Atwater, and that a better location that is clearly missing from the DEIR is the Ferraro site where there is easily room for realignment to include this project - plus the location would greatly benefit from related upgrades.

Alternate Atwater site for "Crystal Springs Ballfields" project is the clear "Win-Win" choice.

Should the construction of brand new baseball fields displace thousands of daily picnickers and permanently destroy heritage trees at Crystal Springs?

Certainly not, when there is a perfectly reasonable alternative.


That's not the case, however,  if you listen to the cacophony thrown up by Councilmember Tom LaBonge and his supposedly unbiased proxies, some of whom currently dominate the board of what used to be the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council and have their own personal pet projects pending in Griffith Park.

No one really knows why the councilmember has set his sights on Crystal Springs. I sure don't.  Why on earth is LaBonge determined to willfully disenfranchise thousands of families of predominantly Hispanic descent who rely on and heavily utilize the Crystal Springs picnic area, and have done so for half a century?

There is a perfectly reasonable alternative site for the proposed project that does not result in the permanent loss of heritage trees and that does not wholesale displace an entire large, historic user group at the picnic area. The alternative site on the Atwater side of the park should be chosen, rather than forcing the construction of additional ballfields at Crystal Springs for what are highly questionable reasons.

FoGP has a pretty clear and reasonable description of why the alternative is the best choice for all interests here.



The alternative Atwater site is a win for both the councilmember and friends, and the thousands of families that likely have little to no idea this project is in the works - or what may be decided largely without their input about Crystal Springs: a place that has been a family tradition each weekend for generations.

If you can stomach the manufactured hysteria and questionable testimony that will no doubt be unveiled by LaBonge's propaganda machine (lord these folks are noisy... and relentless), I hope you will bring your rationale mind and come to the EIR Presentation Meeting  - a meeting dubbed 'do or die' by LaBonge's proxies at the local paper - which takes place this Wednesday.

Read the draft EIR first - especially the discussion of the alternatives. Then come to the meeting and point out that the alternate Atwater site represents a win-win proposition for both sides. 

Let's hope the councilmember who ostensibly represents all people of CD 4 will have an epiphany on this when rational minds speak up.


EIR Presentation Meeting info:

A public workshop and hearing will be held, beginning at 5:30, on Wednesday, November 20, 2013, at the Witherbee Auditorium of the Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens, 5333 Zoo Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90027.

Please use the Children’s Discovery Center entrance.

Those who cannot attend the meeting but want to go on record may submit their comments directly via e-mail to: Maria Martin maria.martin@lacity.org  with the SUBJECT LINE: Griffith Park Crystal Springs - Draft EIR

Or write to City of Los Angeles, Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, Environmental Management Group, 1149 S. Broadway, 6th Floor, Mail Stop 939, Los Angeles, CA 90015-2213.

Just Give

A friend found this in their email in-box yesterday. They have no idea what/why, and neither do I after reading it.

Sent: Tue, Nov 5, 2013 12:01 pm
Subject: RSVP Today for Private Reception with Councilmember Tom LaBonge Nov. 12!

Dear Friend,

Please join Councilmember Tom LaBonge at a private reception next Tuesday November 12, 2013.

Who: Councilmember Tom LaBonge
When: Tuesday November 12, 2013 from 6:00-7:30pm
Where: Lucy's El Adobe - 5536 Melrose Ave Los Angeles, CA 90004
Suggested Contribution: $5,000 (raise), $1,000 per couple

If you are interested in attending please RSVP to me, Stephanie Daily Smith, at dailysmith@gmail.com or call (310) 497-8162.

I hope that you can join us!
Regards,
Stephanie Daily Smith

Smith was a campaign staffer for Garcetti, but that race is pretty much over now. Best guess: LaBonge staffer Ramsey's run for CD 4.

I won't be spending $5,000 to find out for certain what this is about, but if you do - drop us a line and let us know.

Micromanagement of a Legacy

What can you say about an agenda for a two-hour board(sic) meeting that has more than 70 different agenda items? Besides WTF, that is.

An agenda like this is clearly symptomatic of something.

    panic comes to mind first.  

    obsession, second.  

    who actually manages the parks? third.

And finally:  

     doesn't the Councilmember have an entire council district to be worrying about?


This last is a very good question, and in this particular case, it is getting asked a lot lately. The answer is apparently not, if Steve Lopez's puffy 'Boss For A Day' piece is any indication.

Los Angeles' city councilmembers are the highest paid among key cities in this entire country. It would probably be best if they worried about the big stuff that affects their 280,000 constituents rather than micromanaging their perceived legacy.

There's plenty of big stuff that needs addressing across Los Angeles right now to keep any councilmember very very busy.


-----------------------------------------
Griffith Park Resource Board Meeting
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
5:00 – 7:00 PM

Welcome, Introductions and Review of Meeting Notes

Report on Active Capital Improvements:
•Report on status of Griffith Park Superintendent
•Legislative Report [Council Motions]
•Status of Griffith Park Water System
•Status of Griffith Park Southern Water Recycling Project
•Status of Walking Path Trail from Greek Theatre to Observatory
•Status of Los Angeles Park Rangers Program
•Status of Implementing Circulating Passenger Van for Observatory
•Status of Increasing DASH Service from Metro Stop
•Status of Transportation Pilot Program for Access to GP via Beachwood Cyn
•Status of LADOT Zoo Drive Signal/Traffic Study

Grants Reports:
•Fern Dell Tongva/Gabrielino Tribe Recognition & Amenities -$50,000
•Fern Dell/Black Oak Storm Drain & Resurfacing Project -$150,000
•Merry-Go-Round Restoration - $10,000
•Travel Town - $20,000
•Travel Town Gift Shop (from NBC Universal) - $50,000
•Zoo (from NBC Universal) - $50,000
•Griffith Park Pool Extended Hours - $12,500
•Holiday Lights Festival at Zoo - $100,000
•Symphony in the Glen - $5,000
•PAVA - $5,000
•Independent Shakespeare Company - $2,500
•Holiday Family Film Event at Merry-Go-Round - $1,500
•Merry-Go-Round Anniversary - $500

Report on the Recreation and Parks Projects
•Status of Griffith Park Vision Plan
•Crystal Springs Youth Sports Baseball Fields
•Travel Town mobile gift shop/Travel Town Train Pavilion West
•Adult fitness equipment at Park Central
•Permanent stage at Old Zoo
•Griffith Park road improvements
•Griffith Park signage
•Griffith Park Recreation Center play area improvements
•Griffith Park historic pool restoration (proposed)
•Griffith Park Recreation Center soccer field electrical rehabilitation

Report on Griffith Park Land Acquisitions:
•Cahuenga Peak
•Mt. Lee Area
•Forest Lawn
•Lake Hollywood parcels A, B and C

•Other sites:
Report from the Autry National Center
Report from the Los Angeles Zoo
Report from Griffith Observatory
Report on the LADWP Projects
•Aqueduct Centennial Garden at Mulholland Memorial Fountain
•Headworks Reservoir
•Griffith Park South Recycled Water Project
•River Supply ConduitUpdate

Report on the Los Angeles River & Bridge Projects:
•Alternative 20
•Glendale-Hyperion Viaduct Improvement Project
•LaKretz Crossing
•Riverside Drive

Report on Public Works Projects:
•Mt. Lee Drive
•Mt. Lee Communications Center

Report on Griffith Park Events
•Special Events
•Holiday Light Festival at Zoo
•Holiday Family Film Night
•Haunted Hayride
•Arts and Culture
•Symphony at the Glen
•Eek at the Greek
•International Shakespeare

Report on Public Safety
•Park Rangers
•LAPD Report - Lock ItHide It Keep It
•LAFD Report

Report on Griffith Park Office of Councilmember LaBonge’s Volunteer Projects
•PAVA - Weekly
•UCLA Day of Service
•Immaculate Heart Earthcare Day
•CD4 Cleanups in all areas of the park

Adjourn

GP Resources "Board" to meet on Oct 30

Almost hilarious because there is no such board - it does not exist, period. 

But what it is is Tom LaBonge putting City employees through his dog and pony show as he tells you all of his wonderful plans for Griffith Park before time's up.

Want to know what he's up to? See you there.

Ranger Leadership missing from Arts Parks Health Aging and River report request

Update 10-8-13

Councilmember Fuentes just added a friendly amendment requiring study of the impact of not having a fully-qualified Chief Park Ranger.

The motion passed 14-0.

----
There is clearly something integral missing from the APHAR report requesting a comprehensive update from Recreation and Parks on the challenges currently facing the Park Ranger Division:

CHIEF

PARK

RANGER


This will be voted on in City Council on October 8th.

Do you think any of our City Councilmembers will care enough to catch this major missing piece and correct it? Or will lack of proper qualified leadership continue to threaten the very existence of the Park Ranger Division?

Challenges facing Park Rangers, City parks start with the CAO

This past Monday, the City's Arts Parks Health Aging & River Committee had an item (cf# 12-0899-S1) on their agenda asking the Department of Recreation and Parks for an update on the challenges facing the Park Ranger Division.

Tom LaBonge authored the vague-sounding motion and Felipe Fuentes - a new councilman with a new Park Ranger Station in Hansen Dam Recreation Area and zero Park Rangers to operate it - seconded the motion.

The challenges facing the health of our Park Ranger Division have directly impacted the health of our large Regional Parks in Los Angeles.  Read all about why this is the case in the PUBLIC COMMENT below.

Hansen Dam Ranger Station - Nobody Home

So what exactly are those challenges? There are a number of us parks advocates out there who know from years of experience and advocacy that these challenges facing the survival of the Park Ranger Division are substantial. Ever hopeful, this particular advocate was looking for some real discussion of this important parks issue during the committee meeting on Monday.

Alas, it was not to be. After what amounted to a haphazard non-report by Recreation and Parks' AGM Kevin Regan (who is, himself, one of the very challenges in question), the motion was amended to have this report presented in 60 days. 


AGM Regan could easily have produced a report at Monday's meeting on the challenges facing the Park Ranger Division. Easily. After all, he's put himself fully in command of the POST-certified division. That said, one suspects that if any give in hiring new Rangers was likely by the Parks Department-hating CAO, Miguel Santana, it would have happened yesterday since they could hire to fill funded positions that are currently unfilled due to attrition. But the entire hearing on this item was just giving the pretense about doing something concrete to address the serious issues affecting the Park Ranger Division, so Santana must be saying "no".

Not surprising. CAO Santana simply hates the Department of Recreation and Parks. He actually went out of his way to taunt them during their budget hearing, which is utterly shocking behavior for an alleged professional.

Taunting Recreation and Parks as he facilitates the theft of $70 million from the department and balances his budget on the backs of Los Angeles' children goes well beyond amoral. Why is this guy still working as CAO?

OK, so add CAO Miguel Santana to the substantial list of challenges facing the Park Ranger Division. And facing the children of Los Angeles.


As for myself, I took a different approach to this hearing. Rather than adding to the number of simple public comments I've made on the Park Ranger Division, I decided to respond to the motion and write that report from what I know firsthand. And, oddly enough, a number of questions Kevin Regan was asked by the committee and didn't necessarily respond to are factually addressed in my public comment.  Fascinating, that. 

So here for your reading enjoyment is an update on the challenges currently facing the Park Ranger Division. Minus CAO Miguel Santana. I'll be adding him in to my next draft.

Listen to the audio of Monday's committee hearing here (item 2).
---


PUBLIC COMMENT
 
A. Who are the City of Los Angeles Park Rangers?
 

The best way to understand who the Park Rangers are is probably by reading the Draft Park Ranger Division 5-Year Strategic Plan (2009).

The City of Los Angeles Park Rangers are a California POST-certified agency. Park Rangers are highly trained professionals whose job duties evolved directly from the day-to-day needs in our Los Angeles parks. No other agency can or does respond to these needs like Park Rangers.
 
Currently, Park Rangers are the in-the-field managers of our Regional Parks (largest City parks), including Griffith Park, Hansen Dam, Elysian Park, Harbor Regional Park, Sepulveda Basin, Ascot Hills, Augustus Hawkins, Debs Park, O’ Melveny Park, Verdugo Hills park, Angel’s Gate, and others. When allowed to respond, Park Rangers typically answer 26,000* calls for service in parks annually (*2007, 2008).
 
Park Rangers also play a critical and under-appreciated role in the Mass Care portion (Recreation and Park’s responsibility) of the City’s Emergency Plan.


Vital park-specific services provided by Park Rangers -
 
Major job duties:

1. Security and Law Enforcement
2. Firefighting
3. Search and Rescue
4. Community Policing
5. Wildlife Management
6. Education and Interpretive

Park Rangers patrol Recreation and Park facilities by vehicle, foot, horseback and bicycle to prevent unauthorized entry, vandalism, theft or other crimes.
 
Park Rangers provide emergency services, shelter and welfare to persons in emergency conditions.
 
Park Rangers respond to accidents and administer First Aid and/or Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) to victims, some may have infectious diseases.
 
Park Rangers carry out search and rescue operations for people who are lost.
 
Park Rangers manage park resources to address wildlife issues, special events, repairs and maintenance, fire safety, patron utilization.
 
Park Rangers present both professional and impromptu educational and interpretive programming to the public to enhance the enjoyment of the community.


B. What are the current challenges facing the Park Ranger Division?
 
A reasonable full deployment of Park Rangers for the Los Angeles Regional Parks we currently have looks essentially like this:

1 Chief Park Ranger
3 Sr. Lead Rangers
28 field Rangers
(Griffith Park Ranger Station) 12-16 full-time Rangers
(Hansen Dam Ranger Station) 8-12 full-time Rangers

Part-time Park Patrol officers and trained volunteers and docents can cover some of duties of these positions but are in no way replacements for full-time Park Rangers.
 
Currently, the sum total of Peace Officer Park Rangers and grandfathered Non-Peace Officer Park Rangers in the field is less than 18, placing the Division and parks services and safety at a very critical tipping point.


Why are we at this point?

During the past decade, the City has allowed non-negotiable hiring freezes, lay-off threats, ersatz “park patrol” entities, managerial neglect and misuse, and attrition to literally decimate the Park Ranger Division.

Peace Officer status is vital to the safe, effective ability of a Park Ranger to efficiently manage their parks in the City of Los Angeles. The current situation is this: a non-POST certified civilian Assistant General Manager acts as the Chief Ranger through a puppet peace officer (typically a Captain) loaned from a different agency. The loaned officer often has little to no understanding of the full scope of the Park Ranger job and most have shown no desire or received no motivation to learn the job.

The linear Command-and-Control structure that is fundamental to POST agencies was removed by the AGM in 2009. When there was a Chief Park Ranger previously, they were answerable to an AGM rather than to a GM.
 
The current type of structure and leadership are fairly unheard of for a California POST agency. Undeniably, it is not healthy, safe or appropriate.
 
Additionally, more than a century (100+ years) of invaluable institutional Ranger knowledge was lost during ERIP due in large part to the alleged hostile work environment created by the AGM in question.

Morale has understandably been low.
 
Non-equal pay (lower) within the City is a factor negatively impacting hiring. 

The college degree requirement impacts hiring but expertise is necessary for this complex position.

Most Peace Officer Park Ranger agencies in California are armed. The current lack of being armed negatively impacts hiring. At face value, this should not be an issue since it is common in California. Los Angles politics remain the main reason for the continuation of this negative hiring impact, sadly.
 
Many of these challenges have been and remain completely unnecessary, specifically where the management of the Division is concerned. The management issue can quickly be corrected by hiring or naming a truly qualified Chief Park Ranger.


C. How do these challenges affect our parks and parks patrons?

During 2004-2008, hundreds of concerned parks patrons and almost 20 neighborhood councils representing more than 800,000 Angelenos passed resolutions or community impact statements that not only supported keeping the Park Rangers in our parks as full peace officers, but with increased staffing to include full coverage of each regional park with Senior Lead Rangers and a Chief Park Ranger. (List is attached)
 
The situation now with few Rangers and no proper Chief Ranger is that no one is home in these parks.
 
When no one is home... Parks users are not safe. Park inhabitants are not safe. Park resources are not safe. When no one is home, our fragile City resources are damaged and abused, costing even more funds to restore. Or they are damaged beyond restoration altogether.


LAPD is not a replacement for Park Rangers.

OPS was not a replacement for Park Rangers, and neither is LAPD. Except for special details, LAPD simply answers radio calls. Most typical park calls are prioritized by LAPD as lower than Code 2 and are placed in the non-emergency call queue (1-877-ASK-LAPD phone line). I have personally been on hold on this line for more than 30 minutes more than once before an operator addressed my call for service.
 
If the call is at a location without a street address such as we have in our Regionals Parks (ex: “Water Crossing” at Hansen Dam), the vast majority of LAPD patrol officers and dispatchers don’t know the location.


LAFD is not a replacement for Park Rangers.

Witness the insane amount of expensive helicopter rescues in Griffith Park by LAFD in the past few years. Rangers contact, educate and inform the public about safe use of the parks before it gets to this point. Park Rangers intimately know their parks. Including locations without addresses.

Peace Officer Park Rangers in the field enforce:

· Alcohol laws
· Trespass laws
· Fire code violations (such as smoking in the brush or attempted arson)
· Handicapped parking violations
· Narcotics violations
· Animal welfare/abuse laws
· Vandalism or graffiti
· Vehicle code violations
 
…and other important quality of life laws and ordinances that LAPD will not bother with.
 
Citing the smaller offenses in parks is proven to prevent escalation of criminality.
 

Both LAPD and LAFD work most effectively and efficiently in and around our parks as needed when they work with a strong Park Ranger Division.

Ranger role goes largely unrecognized in Emergency Preparedness.
 
Park Rangers play a critical role in the Mass Care portion (RAP’s responsibility) of the City’s Emergency Plan. The impact of the “OPS Consolidation” that removed 56 peace officer positions from the Dept. of Recreation and Parks (along with millions of dollars in vital equipment and dispatch positions) on RAP’s specific role in the City Of Los Angeles’s emergency plan has gone unrecognized, with little acknowledgement, and without any real analysis. Due diligence requires that this be addressed.