Silver Lake Master Plan Workshop
Thursday, May 20th, 1999 6:30 PM at
John Marshall High School
Each participant was give a survey to fill out during the discussion groups.
The comments for the participants are summarized below. Since this time we have continued our data gathering activities and have developed some preliminary concepts for passive recreation and beautification around the reservoirs.
General Design Issues
- Consider the reservoir areas existing character and fabric. The proposed concepts may be adding too much. Consider what is there, what is valuable. Some elements should be amended, some should be improved, some removed and some left as is.
- Consider use of artwork.
- Design landscaping/ public uses so as not to displace wildlife
(Blue Herons and Coyotes) that currently uses landscaped area
- Differentiate design between sides of the reservoir the two sides
have very different characters and functions.
- Lighting should not be over done; consider views from surrounding
homes not being blinded by lighting.
- Liked the idea of pocket parks.
- Nursery School is important and needs to be preserved.
- Does the proposed public use displace the child care facility?
- Too Many people come to the dog park
- Dont touch anything; leave it as is.
- There should be no recreational uses.
- Against changing the Eucalyptus Grove into an active area.
- A few people in the group felt strongly that creating attractions would bring people from other neighborhoods. The team explained that the improvements in the Master Plan are designed at a neighborhood level and do not include the kind of features found at regional parks like Griffith Park. In Los Angeles people often travel to different areas to experience the unique features of different parks. Additional on-street parking will make access for people who live in the neighborhood at greater distances or up hill from the park easier.
- Some participants favored closing off public access after dark.
- The focus should be on prime time use.
- Some participants favored gated access to recreational facilities
- Some participants were against 24 hours a day access. 24-hour
access to seating areas and felt that it could encourage loitering
- Parks will attract others no matter what.
- Limited access inside is good but allowing some permanent
paths around edges 24-hours a day is preferred. Some
participants doubted that two levels of bike path and walking path
would work well.
- A participant stated that all Los Angeles parks have trash and
- A participant mentioned that there used to be picnic benches near
the community building that were removed because of problems.
- Access is shown as limited to the Knoll area to discourage
- Participants felt that supervised access is a good idea.
- Are access decisions tied to circulation options? No, but there are
some important relationships.
Paths and Circulation
Traffic and Transportation
- Key traffic improvement desires included streets narrowed (Silver
Lake Boulevard and West Silver Lake Drive) and adding sidewalk
(pedestrian access) around reservoir.
- Participants acknowledged that traffic recommendations will result
in slower traffic along both street, but may also result in
bumper-to-bumper traffic congestion with increased pollution.
- A participant suggested a new stop sign at Armstrong and Silver
- A participant suggested changing speed limit on Silver Lake
Boulevard (Enforcement issue).
- A participant asked if making it more difficult for through traffic on
Silver Lake Boulevard wont create a spillover impact as more
cars circulate through neighborhood streets (currently occurring
on Occidental and Westerly Terrace).
- People drive fast on Silver Lake Boulevard because it looks like a
racetrack with the concrete barriers and chain-link fencing.
Narrowing the street and adding activities/ landscaping will
encourage people to go slower.
- Some participants do not support adding parking on both sides of West Silver Lake Drive.
- Most participants agree that there is insufficient parking at Dog
- Currently there is illegal parking in no parking zones. How can this
- Parking and Drop Off
- The team proposed an off-street parking and drop off area
in an effort to increase safety for children.
- The group stated that the school does not have parking or
drop off problem.
- Additional parking would take space away from the park.
The Nursery school wants to maintain as much of the
shaded area as possible.
- The Neutra house is a unique cultural resource that is planning a
renovation project and increased public access. Currently there are safety problems with people trying to photograph the house from the street. A place within the park should be created from which to photograph and appreciate the house.
- The Dog Park is horrible. What can be done to improve it? Is
porous paving possible? Could maintenance fees be collected from the park users? Should the Dog Park be re-located to another area?
- The Dog Park was a kite park in the past.
- Existing Trees
- Is tree removal necessary, what is the width required for paths and other improvements?
- The team explained that the removal of existing trees is dependent on the width of paths in narrow areas around the reservoirs. The team will study options for preserving the trees in these areas.
- Some participants stated that existing trees are important and trees should be preserved and none removed.
- Street trees
- Street trees are a good idea and they should be selected to be low in height and spaced widely to preserve views. Acacia trees are a good species for limited height.
- Water Quality
- Water Storage Facilities
If Ivanhoe Reservoir were converted into a water storage facility its appearance would not have to change. Rowena Reservoir is a good example of the possibilities available for covering a reservoir. The construction of Rowena Reservoir has gone on for a long time and is not a good example of a project that has had a speedy construction schedule. The construction of underground tanks in the meadow area could take up to a year but could be phased so that the entire area would not need to be closed during construction.
- Water Treatment
Why doesnt DWP look farther and faster into the future for alternative treatment methods and facility sites. This is extremely difficult to do since technology and regulations are constantly changing. DWP is working on developing new methods and is nationally known as an innovative agency.
- A participant suggested that a community-wide vote be taken on the design concepts since the 20,000 invitations were sent and only 200 attended.
- Funding and other Master Plan Issues
- Where will the funding come from for the construction of the Master Plan concepts?
- Most likely funding will come from a variety of public sources at local, regional and federal levels.
- Possible funding sources, project costs and phasing will be explored in the Master Plan process.
- Who is paying for the Master Plan project? The Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power is funding this project.
- What is the final form of the Master Plan and will people vote on it?
- A participant requested information on local representatives for funding lobbying.
- A participant asked about the reality of the master plan being implemented? The implementation of the plan will depend on available funding, regulations by public agencies and the effects of the community in the future.
- The plan is presented in the workshop process for public comment. The team will make serious efforts to address all comments in the master plan process.
Thanks to the over 150 participants who attended Workshop #1 on March 27th. Special thanks for the help we received from the CSSLR and SLRA Board members and DWP staff who assisted with the workshop. We heard many thoughtful and observant comments regarding the issues involved in the open space surrounding the reservoirs.