CD4 Response to Seven Hollywoodland Issues

On October 27 the HHA asked for clarification and a timeline from CD4 on seven important issues. They are as follows:

  • Traffic tourist/ hiker issue when will permanent safety solutions be presented and implemented?
  • Support or non support of the building and safety appeal of 6068 Mulholland?
  • Support or nonsupport of rap circulation appeal
  • Support or nonsupport for requiring an EIR for all of unauthorized openings, alteration vistas etc.  created in the HGP       area of Griffith park
  • Support or non support of restoration of trees removed surrounding the Lake Hollywood Reservoir  
  • Support or nonsupport of sign use abuse, ie., dope on a rope 

Following is the response from Sarah Dusseault, Chief of Staff to Councilman Ryu:

  • As to the timeline for the first, for all the reasons that we have discussed, we need more information on timelines etc in order to lay that out.
  • 6068 Mullholland – Julia is investigating.  We don’t have a timeline on this until the LADBS investigations are complete.
  • RAP appeal, we will need to read through your grounds for appeal.  We were not aware that you had planned to file one.  As you are aware, the CM has already supported the RAP plan, so he would need new information in order to change his position.
  • The EIR question – is a CEQA review is not necessarily an EIR which could costs millions it may be a MND.  We have already asked RAP to have their lawyers commence work.  We have asked RAP for a timeline.  Keep in mind, according to the city attorney they cannot work on anything, literally anything, related to the Griffith Park Action plan while your appeal is in consideration, so that any overlap of these two issues will have to be separated for now.
  • We have always supported restoration of the trees.  DWP is working on a sustainable plan for replacement and healthy growth.  We are working with them on this important issue.
  • I don’t know what you mean by support or non-support of sign use abuse?  Do you mean in general or for the FAA case?  If I am clear on the issue, the answer is that we always support prosecution and action against trespassers/pranksters/illegal commercial use.   As you heard first hand from the neighborhood prosecutor, he tries to prosecute all of the referrals we send him, including the latest.  We think its great that you also filed with FAA.