Meeting Date: 11/04/03 07:30 PM
Meeting Type: Regular
Location: Women’s Club of Hollywood
1749 North LaBrea Avenue, Auditorium
Details: Welcome. Introductions and sign-in.
Review/ approve minutes of October 21 meeting
This is the third and last meeting called by Area 6 of the HHWNC in response to the request of Councilman Tom LaBonge for advice from the immediate neighborhood of Runyon Canyon Park about the effect of the park on the lives of people in the neighborhood.
1. Review Park Advisory Board Recommendations to CD 4 from the neighborhood perspective: agree or disagree. Discussion and possible vote, 20 minutes.
2. Review Off Leash Dog Exercise Area Policy of Department of Recreation and Parks. Policy is included as attachment to this Agenda. Does Runyon Canyon comply with this policy? Discussion and possible vote. 20 minutes.
3. Discuss/identify impact of Runyon Canyon on community with regard to quality of life, crime, traffic, parking. Use of speaker cards. Discussion and possible vote. 20 minutes.
4. Discuss/identify possible solutions regarding identified impact of Runyon Canyon. . Use of speaker cards. Discussion and possible vote . 20 minutes.
5. Public comment on items not related to agenda.
6. Determine next meeting time and place.
Meeting Minutes of 11/04/03
HHWNC Area 6: Nichols Canyon, Wattles & Runyon Canyon Communities
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
– The Chair who then asked for a volunteer to serve as Secretary called the meeting to order. I, Raoul Peter Mongilardi, volunteered and am also serving as transcriber of the meeting minutes.
– Approximately 40-50 persons were in attendance. (Sign-in sheets and stakeholder forms were collected separately and have not been shared with the Acting Secretary.)
– This document is a literal (real-time) transcription to the best of my non-professional aptitude in so far as direct experience is concerned herein.
– For ease of reading, this document is entered in an analog transcription of the meeting and will be paginated accordingly.
– The Secretary requested that each speaker announce his or her name prior to taking the floor. * During the latter part of the meeting, there was overlapping conversation, which effectively prohibited and nullified the Secretary’s request. However, for the most part, the request for name announcement was adhered to.
Item # 1
The Chair asked for a reading of the meeting minutes and ratification thereof of the meetings held on October 8th, 2003 and October 21, 2003. Ms. Liz Barris volunteered and read those minutes. Following the reading, the Chair requested a vote of approval of the aforementioned meeting minutes. A vote was taken:
All in favor of approval: YES – 15
All not in favor : NO- 0
Item # 2
Chair introduced Park Advisory Board Recommendation, aka as Exhibit B in 8 sections. Discussion and vote on each section commenced.
I. Explore Other Parks for On and Off-Leash Dog Owners
A review for clarification was read. Speakers requested floor time as follows:
Douglas Fisher: “My understanding is this pertains to a question as to if there will be alternatives (parks) for off leash use.
Steve Scott: “The purpose is to explore other unexploited areas as alternatives.
Liz Barris: “Point of order? Can we vote yes or no. And what about -pertaining to your (indicates Mr. Scott) concept, as an alternative, areas in Griffith Park?
David Ross: “Perhaps we should take a look at New York? They have limited dog runs in their parks that do not take up huge areas.”
Toby Leaman: “Motion to vote.”
The consensus was to take the vote, thusly worded: A motion to vote for alternative parks for dogs:
All in favor: YES-29
All opposed: NO- 0
Allan Kolman: “So this constitutes that we are “stakeholders” but does it constitute one area committee per person?”
Chair explained HHWNC rule: it is possible to be a member of no more than one area or local committee and two issue committees.
Item # 3
II. Close Vista Gate :
A) To close the gate completely
B) To close the gate for Dogs
C) To provide ‘special’ openings
Raoul Peter Mongilardi: “Will the gate closing funnel more traffic into the already over-burdened Hillside and Fuller streets? It seems to me it shall and furthermore, it seems designed to do just that. Hillside and Fuller residents already suffer from no parking due to Dog visitors. What will happen when and if a real emergency occurs during such a crowding? This ties into the parking lot question that if implemented will certainly encourage loitering because again, we already suffer from too few patrols. And one more thing…how many access roads aside from Fuller will be used for this parking lot? One on Vista? One on Outpost? “
Diedre Hennings: “Closing the Vista gate is going to exacerbate the danger of fires. I mean, we already know that Runyon Canyon is a fire concern area and if such gate closings are approved there should at least be push-bars for exit.”
Terry Tunder: “There is no reason to close gates and if they are closed it will unquestionably funnel all the car and foot traffic onto Fuller Street, which is precisely what the Vista Street residents are trying to accomplish.”
Joyce Breiman: “The city insists there are other parks with underground parking available?’
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: “Where the hell are these?”
Gwendolyn Mitchell: “Fuller and Hillside are far too narrow as it is for this idea of angled parking such as has been discussed.”
Allan Kolman: “Any in favor of non-binding votes?”
Liz Barris: “I recommend a choice be offered for exits and entrances to the park.”
Steve Scott: ” Discussion has been made regarding two entrances for the proposed parking lot.”
Diedre Hennings: “I suggest that somehow, someway a parking solution is inevitable. It seems only a question of time.”
Chair: “Do we support the closing of the Vista Street Gate?”
Option 1 (closed to dogs and people): NO-33
Option 2 (closed to dogs, open to people): YES- 7
III. A. Do Not Build a Lower Parking Lot but look for other parking options NOT INCLUDING WATTLES and LaBrea.
B. A proposed one-way of Fuller and Hillside:
All opposed to the parking lot: NO- 29
All in favor of the parking lot: YES- 1
2) Feasibility of Other Parking Lots:
All in favor of exploring other areas: YES- 33
All opposed: NO- 0
B. 7200 block of Hillside a one-way street, contingent upon diagonal parking:
All in favor: YES- 7
All opposed: NO- 14
Paul Dorrigo: “If we approve of diagonal parking how will affect the other issues?”
Terry Tunder: “One way streets will simply put more traffic on Fuller.”
Rob Plottzer: “How many people who drew up this document live on Fuller”
Chair: ” One person.”
Paul Sarnoff: “If you make Hillside one way going east, then you must make a right on La Brea and this will destroy the traffic pattern.”
James Nelms: “Yes, true, and the traffic pattern is already terrible due to the change of the duration of the light at La Brea and Franklin. This will create a race track effect as people careen around the block vying for parking spaces.”
Chair: ” Then the vote is now on table to make Hillside a one-way street.”
All in favor: YES- 0
All opposed: NO- 31
IV. Upper Mulholland Parking Lot Expansion, construction of aesthically pleasing fence per Mulholland DRB, install metered parking.
Chair: ” A vote for expanding parking lot on Mullholland.”
All in favor: YES- 42
All opposed: NO- 4
Allison Stein: “Why not take money that is not ear marked for the park…”
James Nelms: “2 hour parking meters could fund park improvements.”
Douglas Fisher: “Put parking meters on Mullholland!”
Raoul Peter Mongilardi: “We should have-if we must have parking meters in the park-a very brief limit of time, say 30 minutes. The city will make revenue on that.”
A GENERAL RESPONSE IN CONSENSUS: “Two hours.”
Allan Kolman: ” I wonder will parking meters on Mullholland chase traffic to Fuller?”
Steve Scott: “Desmond Estates has approved parking meters on Mullholland.”
Liz Barris: “I request that there be a division in two sections for Mullholland parking lots. To expand a lot and install another with meters.”
Vote on :
Meters to patrol: split the vote, article # 4
Motion to amend to divide the vote:
All in favor: YES- 34
All opposed: NO- 0
Upper parking lot, Part A to implement:
All in favor: YES- 31
All opposed: NO- 0
Part B, Installation of 2 hour meters:
All in favor: YES- 15
All opposed: NO- 12
V. Upper Mulholland Off Leash Area Extension
Mulholland Off-leash area:
All in favor: YES-25
All opposed: NO- 0
Mullholland Off leash area:
All in favor: YES- 29
All opposed: NO- 1
VI. $40-$50 Annual User Fee per dog
Park User Fee: Board recommended user fee of $40.00 to $50.00 per person with low income exclusion. Fees allocated to RC PAB ops and improvements
All in favor: YES- 23
All opposed: NO- 10
Rob Plaza: “By voting for article 6 we will fund the advisory board though we have stated we do not recognize this action…”
Conrad____: “This is a ludicrous recommendation.”
Steve Scott: “The idea is to generate revenue.”
David Ross: “This could privatize the park versus opening smaller runs in other parks.”
Diedre Hennings: “Any dog owner can walk a dog…what they are paying for here is the privilege to bring dogs to this park.”
Terry Tunder: “All this closing of Vista is being generated by Vista residents to further their aim to have special interest and control of the area.”
Bob Eicholz: “The city has no more money. If off leash dogs do damage to the area this is a means to tax people for usage.”
Douglas Fisher: “Who is going to collect this revenue a patrol and what constitutes park usage?”
Rob Plaza: “This is misinformation. If we need an annual fee because there are no available funds, then why did Rory say there is $1 million in funds for Runyon?”
Deidre Hennings: “My understanding of funding is that if this is partially government funds then by receiving Grant into an area demands and area to remain per se (unchanged) for a period of time. Can they use a pot of money where they have already spent federal money?”
Bob Eicholz: “Voters approved $1 million for capitol allocations, such as buildings, plants, trail maintenance etc. This cannot be used for a park ranger. The city has spent $250,000.00 of the remaining funds for the grassy area, fence etc. $750,000.00 remains. This must be spent by 2019.”
IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION:
Liz Barris: “There is no fee for low income persons.”
“Who determines who is low income and how on earth will that be checked?”
Liz Barris: “I suppose via dog registration tags, and possibly a dual registration to use the park.”
Rob Plaza: “I am informed there is $4 million in MTA funds and 320 parks in LA. Runyon is one of 8 off leash parks.”
Chair: “Due to time constraints I motion that we proceed with voting.”
Item # 11
Chair: “The consensus is now that the straw vote incorporates the official vote.”
Vote on # 6 A Park User Fee of $50.00 per person:
All in favor: YES- 16
All opposed: NO- 9
VII. Non Native Plants. Recommendation to leave non native plants in park.
Study of non-native plants:
All in favor: YES- 28
All opposed: NO- 1
VIII. Volunteer Program
All in favor: YES- 26
All opposed: NO- 1
Item # 14
1) All in favor: YES- 26
All opposed: NO-
Chair: “The board meets on Thursday to collect votes. Another meeting is slated for the first Tuesday in December at St. Thomas Episcopal Church. Check the website.”
Meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00PM
-Raoul Peter Mongilardi, Secretary
- CD4 Virtual Candidate Forum
- Housing Chair Vacancy
- Executive Committee Special Meeting
- HHWNC Virtual Board Meeting- Wed. Sept. 16, 2020
- PLUM Committee & Ad Hoc Hollywood Community Plan Committee Joint Meeting – 9/9/2020
- PLUM Committee Meeting (virtual) – Sept. 2, 2020 @ 6pm
- Hollywood Hills PARTY HOUSE VIRTUAL TOWN HALL MONDAY 5:30 pm With CD4 Councilmember David Ryu