by Marian Dodge
Liquor licenses are prohibited in open spaces and in residential areas. Griffith Observatory is located in Griffith Park which is zoned open space (OS-1XL). It is accessed exclusively through Los Feliz residential neighborhoods. Nevertheless, Wolfgang Puck Catering and Events, LLC, which was granted the exclusive food and beverage concession at Griffith Observatory on September 6, 2006, is now applying for a zoning variance to allow liquor to be served at the Observatory. Puck is actively planning an ambitious schedule of catered special events serving alcohol at the city’s newly renovated icon overlooking our community.
“Mars or Martinis?” was the headline aptly used with a story on The Oaks Homeowners Association web site. The issue has become heated and contentious as it is being debated at public forums. Here’s the history of this long-running drama.
Request for Proposal process, October, 2004
The City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks issued a Request
for Proposal (RFP) for the Griffith Observatory cafe, catering, and gift
shop/bookstore on October 13, 2004. The document was quite specific in what
it wanted and what it did not want. The RFP specified that “rentals
to outside groups ...will be the exception, not the general rule. The
City does not want the operator/caterer to be marketing, selling or
promoting the Observatory as a catering venue. ...financial expectations
from this business opportunity (contract) should not be based on the
potential for external (outside groups and organizations) food and
beverage catering” (p. 6). Families will
make up the largest portion of visitors (p.8). “At this time Beer & Wine
service is not planned for the cafe” (p.10).
Only two firms submitted proposals in response to the RFP, Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts and Wolfgang Puck. The two proposals were reviewed and evaluated. Delaware North followed the guidelines of the RFP. Puck went well beyond the requirements of the RFP and earned more points by promising more revenue generating concepts than the RFP allowed. The evaluators apparently ignored the restrictions of the RFP and awarded more points to Puck.
The entire process of the RFP and subsequent concession agreement was without any public notification or input. The community was denied due process and was left in the dark about what was to happen in their own back yard.
Gerry Hans, President of the Oaks Homeowners Association, heard that Wolfgang Puck received the RFP for the Observatory concession from Rec. and Parks. He contacted Puck on April 3, 2005 for further information. He was given no information and after a lengthy run around was referred to the concession department at RAP.
Park Commission’s policies, August 9, 2006
A year and a half later Puck’s attorney finally contacted the neighbors.
We went scrambling for information regarding the concession and found
the Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners Schedule of Rates and
Fees, dated August 9, 2006, which established policies covering the cafe
concession at the Observatory. This document is available for download
as a .pdf document here.
The August 9 report states that “All facilities ...are primarily for the use of the Observatory in accomplishing its educational mission” (p.2) The purpose of other allowed events would be “civic responsibility and the promotion of science and astronomy” (Attach. A p. 3) The use of the facility by the Observatory takes priority over all other uses (Attach A p.2). Rentals would generally only be when the Observatory is closed to the public (Mondays) and only during the event season October 1 to April 1 (p. 3) so as not to conflict with the Greek Theatre season. There was a requirement that alcohol service at catered events conclude by 9:00 pm. (p.2).
Wolfgang Puck’s Attorney, September, 2006
R.J. Comer, an attorney for Armbruster & Goldsmith, LLP, representing Wolfgang
Puck, met with the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council (GGPNC) on September
19, with LFIA’s Park Committee on September 25, with the Parks,
River, and Open Spaces Committee (PROS) on October 9, and with the Hollywood
United Neighborhood Council (HUNC) on November 20. Comer told us he did
not have to notify neighbors because no one lived within 500 feet of
the Observatory. The code requires notification of any property owner
within 500 feet of the property involved, not the building. Since the
property in question is Griffith Park, everyone adjacent to the park,
including people in Burbank and Studio City, should have been notified
of the variance request. That was not done.
The provisions in the application were alarming. A full line of alcoholic beverages would be served; events would take place anywhere on the Observatory grounds even during operating hours; areas being used by private parties could be cordoned off preventing the general public from viewing those areas of the Observatory; events would include “corporate meetings and conventions, social groups such as weddings, reunions and birthday parties, and charity and political fund raisers.” (p.2). Events could last until midnight or later (p.8). There would be no limit on the number of catered events per year; the only restriction was that they could not have back-to-back events (p.8). That policy would allow 180 private, catered special events per year!
We asked Comer how this squared with the restrictions of the August 9 Park Commission report. He professed not to know anything about it nor its restrictions. Comer said that, in any case, they were not in agreement with Puck’s concession agreement; they would go back to the city and change the restrictions to suit their contract. One can only surmise that the contract would not be nearly as profitable for Puck without the additional revenue from catered events.
The draft of Wolfgang Puck’s request for an alcohol variance at the Observatory made numerous references to the fact that it was not designed to be a destination restaurant. As a matter of fact they stated it so many times that one could only come to the conclusion that they fully intended to create a destination restaurant at the Observatory. Those of you who have read The Observer for several years will recall that LFIA vigorously opposed and stopped a destination restaurant at the Observatory in the spring of 2004, shortly before the RFP for the Observatory cafe concession was issued.
Puck Concession Agreement, September,
2006
Bernadette Soter of the PROS Committee obtained a copy of the Wolfgang
Puck
That agreement states that they “will not make use of the premises in
any manner which might interfere with the intended use of the facility (p.4). “Hours
of operation for catered special events is expected to conform to the park’s
hours of operation” (p. 17 ) That contradicts their own liquor
variance request to use all of the Observatory at any time.
Liquor Service Zoning Variance, December, 2006
A later version of the Puck liquor variance dated December 19, 2006 was
mailed to LFIA on January 22, 2007, available as .pdf here. It came not
from Armbruster & Goldsmith,
LLP, as the earlier draft had, but was filtered through Nancy Patterson
of Urban Solutions, Inc., which identifies itself as real estate development
consultants. The cover letter, which was copied to R.J. Comer, indicated
that Patterson would be making any future presentations. It is not clear
why Puck suddenly chose to change its public representative.
Puck avoided submitting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this
zoning variance by stating that “the Griffith Park (sic) Observatory Master
Plan EIR No. 187-97 serves as the CEQA compliance document for this application.” (p.
5) They further stated that “Denial of the request would unfairly impair/prevent
the LADRP and the Applicant from enjoying reasonable use of the Observatory
as a public space...” (p. 5) “For catered events to be successful,
the responsible service of alcoholic beverages with food services is required.” (p.
6). The gross sale of alcohol will exceed the gross sale of food on a quarterly
basis (p. 13). “Granting a variance will not contribute to an undue overconcentration
for the area because the Observatory is socially desirable and convenient,
and will contribute to the public welfare.” (p. 10) How, one wonders,
does the serving of alcoholic beverages contribute to the public welfare? Is
this what Col. Griffith had in mind when he gave the Observatory to the people
of Los Angeles?
The application recognizes the steep topography surrounding the Observatory
several times (p. 5, 7). However instead of noting the hazard of drunk
drivers on the narrow, winding roads, it states that the steep topography
means that there will be no impact to surrounding uses such as residences
or park users! Have they forgotten that Councilman Hal Bernson’s
daughter was killed when she drove off the edge of Observatory Road after
drinking?
The application incorrectly claims that there is only one access road to the Observatory (p. 6, 7) and that it is “well-bounded and easily secured” (p. 6). Those familiar with the Observatory know this is not true. It can be accessed from either Vermont or Western Canyon and that there are numerous trails leading to the Observatory as well.
Zoning Variance Hearing, March 13, 2007
LFIA opposes the serving or selling of alcoholic beverages at Observatory
special events because this interferes with the mission of the Observatory
which is scientific education. As LFIA president I wrote to the Zoning
Administrator Albert Landini asking that he consider the negative impact
the presence of alcohol may have on Observatory visitors, the plurality
of which are children, nearby residents and other citizens who may be
affected. “The Observatory
has not needed to sell alcohol in its 71 years of existence, and we see
no compelling reason to start now.”
On March 13, the LFIA along with representatives of community organizations and stakeholders attended a Zoning Variance meeting at Los Angeles City Hall. Attendees supporting the variance were Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks Griffith Region Superintendent Vicki Israel, Puck attorneys and special events managers, and a local night club owner. Israel stated that it was important to "showcase" the Observatory after its $93 million renovation. Councilmember Tom LaBonge supported the use of alcohol at special events at the Observatory.
The Zoning Administrator was perturbed to hear that Recreation and Parks did not have guidelines ready, which they responded are “under review.” Rec. and Parks ignored the fact that they already have guidelines, the ones promulgated by the Board of Recreation and Parks Commission on August 9, 2006. The Zoning Administrator ultimately ruled that he was reluctant to approve this variance in the absence of any guidelines as to parking, access, hours, number of events, size of events, noise issues, etc.
The preponderance of attendees opposed the granting of the variance. Those arguing against the variance included the LFIA, the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council, the Hollywood United Neighborhood Council, Los Feliz Estates Home Owners Association, the Oaks Homeowners Association, and the Los Feliz Village Business Improvement District, among others. The major objections were: lack of public input in the process; danger of drunk drivers; commercialization of Griffith Park; inappropriateness of special events; lack of parking; increased traffic and noise in the neighborhood; security; and the success of the Observatory for 70 years without alcohol.
Puck's representatives compared their variance application to those granted to the Autry National Center, LA Zoo, Greek Theatre and other Griffith Park institutions. However, the majority of the neighborhood organizations and Park users present protested that those venues do not compare appropriately based on better road access, being on the flatter parts of the park and that their mission does not focus on astronomy education, including significant visitation by children.
As one opposing speaker put it, the grant from Colonel Griffith was that the Observatory was to be the “people's Observatory”, not a pay-to-play special event venue for corporate America. One of the provisions in the variance is that parts of the Observatory could be cordoned off for special events during regular hours denying access to the general public.
The GGPNC Planning, Zoning, and Historic Preservation Committee, chaired by Kenneth Owen, submitted a list of restrictions regarding hours, number, and type of events to Puck. They were flatly dismissed by Puck as impossible.
At the meeting Councilmember Tom LaBonge proposed a 60-day delay until such time as Recreation and Parks can submit their guidelines for the events and until the community stakeholders can be integrated into the process. LaBonge proposed a committee be convened with neighborhood, city and public representatives to consider the appropriate number of events, their size, transportation, and other guidelines, prior to the granting of the liquor license. Public input will be taken until May 30.
Community meeting, March 29, 2007
On March 29, the Department of Recreation & Parks (RAP) held a community
meeting at the Griffith Park Ranger Station regarding the guidelines it would
impose on Wolfgang Puck Catering. The meeting was chaired by RAP’s
Vicki Israel, Superintendent, Griffith Region. Also speaking were Kevin
Regan of RAP, and Dr. Krupp representing the Observatory. No written
draft of the guidelines under discussion was provided for attendees.
Israel responded to written restrictions requested by GGPNC. The major areas of contention were the number of catered events to be permitted and the hours of service of alcohol.
Dr. Krupp explained that requests for special events would come to him for a recommendation of approval by Rec. and Parks General Manager Jon Kirk Mukri. Krupp pointed out that he is an employee of Rec. and Parks (translation: he has to do what the boss says). Kevin Regan of RAP stated that they (RAP) are the property owner and they can serve alcohol until 2:00 am.
After much heated discussion, Recreation and Parks “promised” that alcohol service would not be permitted after 10 p.m., that events would be limited to 1000 people, and that no catered events would be permitted that excluded public access to Observatory facilities. They were vague and evasive when questioned about the total number of catered events that would be permitted, how they planned to handle the traffic from 1000 guests, and other important issues.
Promising that conditions would be imposed on Wolfgang Puck Catering, but refusing to allow the public to see those conditions in writing, struck most of those in attendance as disingenuous. Speakers were outraged and public comment was heated. Juliet Kiperman, chair of the LFIA Zoning Committee, told Israel that the public had given input to Nederlander’s contract with the Greek Theatre and been ignored, and that we had given input to the Griffith Park Master Plan and been ignored. We no longer trust the city to seriously consider public input and would continue being vigilant.
RAP avowed that there would be no further public meetings nor information provided to the public before it submitted its final recommendations to the Zoning Administrator, who will render his ruling at a closed-door hearing on May 30. Many demanded a second meeting where Recreation and Parks’ final conditions would be presented in writing to the public. If another meeting is not scheduled, the LFIA and other community organizations will take additional steps to assure that the Observatory does not become L.A.’s newest party place.
In the meantime, you can voice your opinion to: Councilmember Tom LaBonge at councilmember.Labonge@lacity.org, Jon Kirk Mukri of Recreation and Parks at JonKirk.Mukri@lacity.org. You should also send your comments directly to the Zoning Administrator who will make the decision, albertlandini@aol.com. Put the case number ZA-2006-10405-ZV in the subject line of the e-mail.
Audio of the March, 29 2007 meeting is available on the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council website, on the Zoning committee page.