The L.A. City Council approval of funding for a Griffith Park Access and Mobility Study is just another way of saying “We will promote development and tourist access to the Hollywood Sign.”

Subject: RE: L.A. City Council Approves Funding for Griffith Park Access
and Mobility Study – Councilmember David Ryu

The Committee to Save the Hollywood Specific Plan’s deep concern regarding
tourism magnet sites improperly developed by the City of Los Angeles to
promote tourist viewing of the Hollywood Sign is only reinforced by the
latest CD4 announcement.  CD4 states:   “The study’s goal is to provide
recommendations on best practices for public access and Hollywood Sign
viewing along the various hiking trails, all while continuing to protect
the urban wilderness elements of the Park.”  Another words this “study”
will be a report on how to further promote development and tourist access
to the Hollywood Sign.  While we applaud CD’4 concern for the wilderness
elements of the Park,  there is no indication that the study will address
mitigations immediately necessary due to the City’s surreptitious
development of Hollywood Sign view sites contiguous to Lake Hollywood
Estates, and Hollywoodland.  The use of these sites now has grown to a
point where continuous policing, monitoring, and maintenance is necessary,
where none was required before the City commenced its actions in 2011.

CD4 states: “The Fourth Council District and the Department of Recreation
and Park (RAP) will work with the same consultant and engineering firm
from the recently implemented Griffith Park Circulation Plan. The Plan
began a seven-day-a-week DASH service program to the Observatory, which
started on March 21, 2017, to improve the overall traffic flow, safety,
and public transportation access to the Park.”  The Committee to Save the
Hollywoodland Specific Plan formally opposed the incomplete Griffith Park
Circulation Plan because it offered significant mitigations benefiting the
Los Feliz area which we believe may likely further negatively impact the
neighborhoods surrounding the western portion of the Park.  We believe the
statements made by Park officials that the already approved Plan will have
no impact to Hollywoodland and Lake Hollywood Estates has no basis in
fact.  The jury is still out, and there has not been enough time to assess
the success or failure of the plan being put into place now.  The City
should investigate the results of their recent actions before the
consultant is rehired.

Only a Full Environmental Impact Report, not a “Study” will sufficiently
allow input from residents regarding Lake Hollywood’s and Hollywoodland’s
adverse impacts, and degradation of our quality of life to be addressed.

Crosby Doe, Director
The Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan

One thought on “The L.A. City Council approval of funding for a Griffith Park Access and Mobility Study is just another way of saying “We will promote development and tourist access to the Hollywood Sign.”

  1. The judge’s decision and the subsequent action are informative and I hope that people take the time to read it.

    While popular discussion refers to the “closing” of the Beachwood Gate, it is more accurate to refer to this change as a “restoration of the Ranch’s easement.” There never officially was a Beachwood Gate. The phenomenon simply emerged from the renegade shovelling of dirt plus publicity which drew cars and hikers. Remember when the cars were allowed to park up the single lane dirt road? That nightmare showed how slovenly had been the thought process that initiated this avalanche of grief. The unanticipated clog of the easement then spilled over into heavy use by walkers which then required a physical gate to try to manage them and PPDs to manage the automobile traffic jams. All of this cost about $1 million dollars. Homeowner heartache and visitors’ expressions of entitlement could have been prevented had the rule of law been respected and mature thinking been in play. Anyway, let’s call it the “restoration of the easement.” It can’t be closed—for it was never opened. The whole thing was a mistake.

    The care and love expressed in this website contrasts so profoundly with the plastic bottles and graffiti generated by this notion that there was a “Beachwood Gate.”

Comments are closed.