Neighborhood Feedback

Neighborhood Feedback

My office is committed to hearing the issues affecting Council District 4. Please take a moment to send us a message. Every suggestion or concern is taken seriously and will be taken into consideration by the appropriate council staff.  Thank you for your feedback.

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

COUNCILMAN RYU, PLEASE ATTEND THIS MEETING

SHOW UP AND TELL US IN YOUR OWN WORDS WHAT YOU DID TO TRY TO STOP THE CLOSURE OF THE BEACHWOOD GATE. Griffith Park Advisory Board THURSDAY, APRIL 27th, 6:30pm Griffith Park Visitor’s Center Auditorium 4730 Crystal Springs Drive L.A.CA, 90027

1 reaction Share

Open the Beachwood Trailhead

I found out about the gate being closed not from you or anyone in your office, but from the NextDoor website for Beachwood Canyon. I called your office. I left messages. I know your field rep for this area is Shannon Prior. I had a few conversations with her while the gate was being built. Shannon was pleasant and said she understood the frustration of local hikers who had been waiting, and waiting, and waiting for the completion of the gate to once again have access to this part of the park. In all the news reports, and in online reports it always sounds like everyone living in the area is for closure. In part, that's because those who pushed for it are initiating measures that the rest of us don't know about until it's too late. For instance, once I found out about the court hearing, (the resulting closure still being a world class example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory), I started calling your office. I emailed. No response. I did get an email from Shannon AFTER the decision saying that Councilman Ryu did not agree with it. Great. Nobody takes responsibility for the debacle. Could you post or send me all the times and places where Ryu vigorously opposed closing the gate? Because I missed that. I got another email from Shannon a few days ago telling me all that was being done NOW to study and address the problem. More taxpayer money is being spent AFTER closing the gate. Too little too late. I don't care about the sign. I know it's a tourist attraction. I have never seen the kind of behavior a handful of homeowners complain about. The gate allowing pedestrians, and the addition of permit parking on weekends was a decent compromise. Closure is not. AND why wasn't Ryu there when we protested the closure? Any time I have come to a meeting or called or emailed, the response I get (rare enough) is too little too late. Not happy.

1 reaction Share

Open the Beachwood Trailhead

I found out about the gate being closed not from you or anyone in your office, but from the NextDoor website for Beachwood Canyon. I called your office. I left messages. I know your field rep for this area is Shannon Prior. I had a few conversations with her while the gate was being built. Shannon was pleasant and said she understood the frustration of local hikers who had been waiting, and waiting, and waiting for the completion of the gate to once again have access to this part of the park. In all the news reports, and in online reports it always sounds like everyone living in the area is for closure. In part, that's because those who pushed for it are initiating measures that the rest of us don't know about until it's too late. For instance, once I found out about the court hearing, (the resulting closure still being a world class example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory), I started calling your office. I emailed. No response. I did get an email from Shannon AFTER the decision saying that Councilman Ryu did not agree with it. Great. Nobody takes responsibility for the debacle. Could you post or send me all the times and places where Ryu vigorously opposed closing the gate? Because I missed that. I got another email from Shannon a few days ago telling me all that was being done NOW to study and address the problem. More taxpayer money is being spent AFTER closing the gate. Too little too late. I don't care about the sign. I know it's a tourist attraction. I have never seen the kind of behavior a handful of homeowners complain about. The gate allowing pedestrians, and the addition of permit parking on weekends was a decent compromise. Closure is not. AND why wasn't Ryu there when we protested the closure? Any time I have come to a meeting or called or emailed, the response I get (rare enough) is too little too late. Not happy.

1 reaction Share

Open the Beachwood Trailhead and remove the illegal parking restrictions

A small group of vocal Beachwood residents have somehow managed to choke the life out of Beachwood Canyon by imposing illegal parking restrictions and now have closed the Beachwood Trailhead. You are clearly not listening to your constituents in Beachwood Canyon that have raised concerns about how these issues affect local businesses and our marketplace. Do your job. We are paying attention, we are organizing, and WE WILL VOTE!

1 reaction Share

Re-open the Beachwood Gate to Hikers!

I have lived in Beachwood Canyon for decades. I resent that taxpayers have been forced to pay for an unnecessary gate that now serves only one private business. Denying access to a public park via a public access is a terrible precedent. The court said pedestrians have the right to use the easement. How does locking the gate fulfill that? Please know that this decision does NOT reflect the desire of the majority of Beachwood residents. It's a small group of homeowners who remind me of people who buy beachfront property and then complain about the public having access to the beach.

1 reaction Share

Re-open access to Griffith Park at the Hollyridge Trail.

Try standing up to the NIMBY voices. Stop hiding behind the judge. It's your district, lead it.

1 reaction Share

Closure of Beachwood Gate

I am very disappointed with the decision to close Beachwood Gate to pedestrians. The public should not be denied public access to the public park. This is a classic example of the sqeaky wheel getting the grease. I hope more neighbors in the community will speak up that this is wrong, and it sets a dangerous precedent.

1 reaction Share

Hollywood Sign trail on Beachwood Drive

Myself, along with many of the residents in Beachwood Canyon are very displeased with the closing of the gate to the trailhead at the top of Beachwood Drive that leads to the Hollywood Sign. I understand that this was a court ruling, however based on that court ruling it appears as if the city did not put up any kind of fight to keep the gate open as the court did not initially require the gate to be closed (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/23/hollywood-sign-lawsuit-california-residents-hiking). I understand that Councilmember Ryu supports access to the Hollywood Sign. If that is the case, then I would like to request that Councilmember Ryu respond to feedback from the residents upset by this decision and tell us what, if anything, he and his office are doing to restore access. Further, there was an article in The Hollywood Reporter that came out yesterday (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywood-sign-access-closed-neighbors-celebrate-995255) that claims the residents who wanted to shut down access on Beachwood are looking to shut down ALL access to the Hollywood Sign west of Bronson. When is this going to end? Enough is enough and I'm urging your office to do something about this. Thank you.

1 reaction Share

Beachwood Access to Hollywood Sign

I have been using Beachwood Dr. access pedestrian gate to hike to Hollywood sign and other parts of Griffith Park for years. I am highly disappointed that the access is going to be terminated. I've noticed the city has been making it harder and harder for people like myself to hike from that area by installing parking restrictions and closing access. This is totally unacceptable and I wish you would do something for your constituents. .

1 reaction Share

What do my animals and I do now?

With the proposal of banning wild/exotic animals for shows/parties in Los Angeles, I would like to know your solution as to what my parrots and I do now? I have been performing my parrot show in Los Angeles for the past 22 years. The focus of my show is education, though the show is also entertaining. My training techniques are positive reinforcement which I learned at Moorpark College's America's Teaching Zoo in Moorpark, CA. My animal's welfare is my number one priority. If you intend to ban me from my livelihood of over 22 years, I hope that you have a possible solution or exemption for my business. I have shows booked at libraries over the next few months, does this mean that they are going to cancel my program?  I would appreciate a response. Thank you, Wendy Horton, Owner, Wildlife Wendy's Tropical Birds

3 reactions Share

PLEASE VOTE NO ON PROPOSED MIRACLE MILE HPOZ

Just like Measure S, this Proposed HPOZ for Miracle Mile GOES TO FAR. PLEASE VOTE NO on these Draconian regulations that will increase the cost of living in Miracle Mile

1 reaction Share

Power Outage

I live in Windsor Square. My neighborhood and most adjacent areas were without power for over 24 hours due to the storm. This is a common occurrence with rain or wind. Please make improving the power infrastructure a priority. We have been told that it is being upgraded - for years - promises. Enough. Take a look at the conversations on Next Door for this area and you will see people are fed up with this situation. It has been a problem for decades. It is not just a huge inconvenience. It is expensive - I am replacing all my refrigerated and frozen food today. It is a safety issue - sitting in a home with no power and no lights on a dark street surrounded by the same. It does not make a family feel safe. Although there were a few blocks with lights on in a sea of dark. The blocks surrounding the mayor never lost power. Duly noted.

1 reaction Share

More bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure

Navigating our part of the city by bike or on foot is at best dangerous and at worst seemingly deliberately designed to be difficult. Redesigning our streets with bicycles and pedestrians in mind is essential not only to bring Los Angeles into the modern era of city design and life, but will make residents safer and healthier. When I was only a pedestrian, my feeling about the streets was that they were designed for cars at my expense, but once I started riding my bike, I realized this was not the case. Our streets are poorly designed for everyone. Dangerous streets with rare accommodation at all for bike riders, never mind actual separated bike lanes, force riders onto our narrow and unmaintained sidewalks, putting them in conflict with pedestrians, who have nowhere else to go. As LA works to build out it's transit infrastructure, we need to keep up and redesign our neighborhood streets with everyone who uses them in mind.

1 reaction Share

No to Miracle Mile HPOZ

The majority of the people here do not want the HPOZ. Why don't you do your job as an elected official and listen to the majority. Do a poll to confirm.

1 reaction Share

Say NO to Illegal Immigration

There are 2 million illegals living in Southern California. One of the reasons why renting is so expensive is this mass of illegals. They should be deported to alleviate crowding and lower housing costs. And the Council should NOT approve street vending-- it will only encourage the illegals to keep coming. LA already is the capital of the third world, don't make it even worse by approving street vendors.

3 reactions Share

Say No on HPOZ in Miracle Mile District 4

I’m writing this email for my husband and myself as concerned home owners of the Miracle Mile District. We are urging you, our Councilmember David Ryu and the City Council to STRONGLY oppose the HPOZ proposal. It has very little support from the residents of the Miracle Mile area and we do not want to give up any of our personal property rights. Or allow such a blatant interference with our prospective business advantage as a single family home owner. The so-called local residents association that supports this scheme does NOT represent our interests, our rights or that of any of our neighbors. We only learned about this issue within the past few months so there has been little outreach to the affected community stakeholders. Passing such an overblown and over controlling city ordinance is a direct violation of our 1st and 5th Amendment Constitutional rights, that will result in massive litigation and financial damages against the City of Los Angeles. Passing the HPOZ proposal could cost the City billions of dollars in class action Federal Court lawsuits to overturn this ill conceived municipal ordinance. We don’t want to be in an HPOZ area plan that contains the language that constitutes the unlawful taking of our property rights. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Mr. & Mrs. J. Perry

1 reaction Share

Re: Garcetti Announces $10 Million Legal Defense Fund For Immigrants

I am strongly opposed to my elected officials spending my tax money to protect law breakers. I am a lifelong Democrat and I am not opposed to immigration. My father and his family were immigrants who came from Scotland and came through Ellis Island legally. Both of my wife's parents came to the country legally from Japan as teenagers sponsored by relatives living here legally. They also spent 3 1/2 years in a concentration camp at Manzanar along with my wife and her brother who were born in California. People who want to immigrate to this country legally spend years and go through a ton of red tape to come here. It is totally wrong to allow those in the country illegally to cut in the line ahead of those trying to do the right thing. These people in the country illegally have no respect for our laws or they wouldn't be here in the first place. They continue to break our laws every day they are here. Illegal immigrants are not law-abiding. They also consume resources that could better be used for our citizens.

1 reaction Share

No to Proposed Traffic Changes in West Sherman Oaks Hills

We oppose both NTM Plan A and NTM Plan B. Although we can sympathize with the concerns of the small group of residents from the West Sherman Oaks Hills area who are advocating for this plan, we believe that it is unfair to other Sherman Oaks neighborhood residents.

Our main issue is the effect these changes will have on our commute times to work and school. The so-called “travel time study” presented in the Notice of Public Hearing is not a study at all - it is hard to believe that it would be represented as such. A total of four cars participated, on a single date at a single time of day. Significantly, the “study” was done on August 26, when neither UCLA nor any of the schools in the Mulholland area are in session. We drive these roads every day, and we can tell you that having these schools in session makes a huge impact on drive time. It seems highly irresponsible to make decisions of such consequence without doing a real study.

Why is it fair that we who live just blocks north of the West Sherman Oaks Hills area will have to significantly increase our commute times, while those living in the West Sherman Oaks Hills area will have even easier access up to Mulholland? This seems to us a clear case of the few (residents of the West Sherman Oaks Hills area) being favored over the many (all the other Sherman Oaks residents who rely on multiple access routes to and from Mulholland). We can’t see why their rights should take precedence over ours, especially since there are a lot more of us than there are of them.

We strongly urge that these proposals be dropped. The real solution to this problem is to improve flow on the 405, Sepulveda, and Beverly Glen. Improvements there would obviate the need for anyone outside of this area to take surface streets up to Mulholland. But we are not outsiders. These surface streets - public streets - are in our neighborhood, and we should have the right to use them.

6 reactions Share

Councilman Ryu Moving On?

I read last week that Councilman Ryu is concidering running already for higher office. My weigh-in is he stay put for several years to build up a solid resume before chasing after the next big thing.

1 reaction Share

NO to Miracle Mile HPOZ

The Miracle Mile HPOZ is being proposed to reduce the likelihood of mansionization, unwanted density, and the loss of affordable housing. However, density and affordable housing are issues of city-wide concern that need to be addressed at a policy level, rather than allowing them to be controlled locally by a voluntary homeowners association which purports to represent a larger group of property owners than it actually does. The HPOZ is not even the appropriate tool to address mansionization. The R1 Variation will stop mansionization in a manner that is acceptable to a majority of R1 homeowners. Please reject the proposal and request that Planning move forward with a proposal for an R1 variation. This will achieve the MMRA's goals within a very short time after expiration of the ICO.

1 reaction Share