New Parking Restrictions around Hollywood's Runyon Canyon Approved

Weekend hikers, take note. Parking in the streets south of Hollywood's famous urban hiking spot will likely be getting worse. The Los Angeles City Council last week approved the renewal and expansion of a parking permit district abut the popular Runyon Canyon, an urban wilderness park that attracts scores of people looking for a workout on the canyon's steep trails that offer views of the city and Hollywood Sign.

Story Continues Below
Support KCET

Restrictions in Temporary Preferential Parking Permit District No. 112, which covers a five-block area around the park's Vista Street entrance, currently allow two-hour parking between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. seven days a week. Those with permits may park beyond the two-hour limit and at night. The new rules will additionally ban parking on weekends for non-permit holders.

More Urban Hiking in L.A.

Watch: Walking L.A.'s 'Secret Stairs'
Watch: Urban Hiking in South L.A.
Darryl Ford of Hollywood Unbound, a blog that follows planning and development in the neighborhood, says "residents of each block in the proposed expansion area will still need to petition LADOT before they could post the new preferential parking restrictions on their block(s)" and believes residents will quickly do just that, if not already.


"Adding new weekend parking restrictions will do nothing to reduce the number of people who visit Runyon Canyon Park and will do nothing to fix the problems being caused in these neighborhoods by visitors to Runyon Canyon Park," Ford opined before a committee pushed the proposal to the full council. "Worse still, this action will likely increase weekend traffic congestion in this area, as visitors to Runyon Canyon Park will spend more time circling nearby streets in search of parking."

He added that the action will be bad for nearby streets that do not carry the same parking restrictions. It "may help quiet some of the local residents who are clamoring for a little relief but, in the long run, doing so won't really address the root of the area's problem."

The temporary parking district will expire next August when the City Council must take up the issue again if no solution is found. The city was planning to build an 80-space parking lot in a grassy field where yoga classes are usually held, but the idea has been on hold since 2009 after a group appealed the plan. A task force was created last month to address numerous quality of life issues such as illegal parking, dog waste and excessive noise.

Parking north of the park, where finding a space in a small lot off Mulholland Drive can be a challenge, has not been changed.

Say hello: "Like" SoCal Wanderer on Facebook and follow @SoCal_Wanderer on Twitter to talk about latest in outdoors with other enthusiasts.

The photo used on this post is by Flickr user manmadepants. It was used under a Creative Commons License.

About the Author

Zach Behrens is KCETLink's Editor-in-Chief of Blogs, where he oversees website editorial and advises on projects. When he does write, he mostly covers local government, environment, and the outdoors.
RSS icon

Previous

Cedar Creek Falls in Cleveland National Forest to Remain Closed

Next

Video: 50 Miles of the John Muir Trail in 4 Minutes

LEAVE A COMMENT Leave Comment  

user-pic

I am so outraged by this whole thing... the property owners demands are out of control - and the city let's them get away with it. It was in their escrow when they purchased the property that they were buying it near a public dog park that OUR tax money goes toward! My street (Gardner), at the bottom of the hill is NOT permitted and last week I drove around for 45 minutes trying to find parking at 10pm (really safe!), while 1 street N and around it (permitted) had DOZENS of free spots. As a renter, I have no rights - and clearly no parking! City council are you listening?!

user-pic

The residents of parking district #72, which consists of Vista St., north of Franklin and Hillside, east of Vista, right below the Vista gate to Runyon Canyon is exclusive to residents and their guests who live on the streets only. This, in spite of each of the large single-family homes having at a minimum of 2-3 garage spaces on their properties and 2-3 driveway parking spaces.

This amounts to having a State-owned and City-maintained private street. Whereas they enjoy the proximity to the park, they don't want others to have easy access to the park.

The Dept. of Transportation says they don't have the money to restudy this district, so the parking district keeps getting renewed by motion from Tom LaBonge, catering to those who don't even need street parking.

Of course, these residents are the same who finance Mr. LaBonge's political campaign.

user-pic

Kim, that simply isn't true, most of the homeowners in the area have lived there long before the park ever existed. In fact, they are the ones who gave the go ahead on the park over 30 years ago, as long as the city took care of any negative impact of the surounding neighborhoods.
I do know that some of the new homeowners in the neighborhood are equally as upset about about the problems, so if there is any disclosure about the park in their escrows, it must be microscopic.
It is very unfortunate that this park became so popular so fast, and the ever slow moving wheels of the city just couldn't keep up.
If you had parked on Vista St before the permit parking, it was a nightmare, cars getting hit, dogs running all over the street, deficating everywhere, and sadly, most of their owners not being responsible. It's true that a few bad apples can, and did, spoil the whole bunch. Had the parking lot been put in 30 years ago, this would never have become the issue that it is today.
MelnLA, It is not a matter of having street parking in your own neighborhood, or keeping people out of a park. It is an matter of safety, health, a general respect for the area, and the people who live there. And, on a side note, I agree with anyone about the inefficiency of Mr. LaBonge. However, your statement about the residence in the area "financing" his campaign is a gross exaggeration, and again, simply not true.

user-pic

Suzanne is right. I'm a property owner on Vista. I'm not sure how our demands are "out of control." If a parking lot had been built for Runyon as promised, this wouldn't be a problem. But it wasnt. IF people were respectful of the neighborhood, kept their dogs leashed until in the off-leash area of the park, didn't use the middle of the street as a free Stairmaster, didn't scream on their cellphones beginning at dawn every morning, didn't leave dog waste behind, it wouldn't be a problem. But they do. The only thing residents have asked for is some (or ANY!) mitigation of the deluge of the negative environmental and health impacts on our streets by Runyon Canyon Park. So far, we've only been offered parking restrictions commonly granted to areas where parking demand exceeds street capacity -- and even that is limited. It helps... a bit. But it's not a final answer to the problems.

And Kim, you do have rights as a renter. You can follow the same process we residents north of you have done, organize to petition DOT and request restricted parking on your block. You're absolutely entitled to have a place to park in front of your own building. We are, too.

MeinLA: This does not amount to an "exclusive" "private street." You just can't park on it. You can walk, run, bicycle, bring your dogs, cousins, whatever you like. We think it would be nice if you showed some courtesy and followed leash and pedestrian laws. Which many do not. As a result... Well, anyone who can say we "enjoy proximity to the park" clearly hasn't spent a weekend living here. Take a look at this short video. It was shot in a single hour on a random Saturday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJopaoRmbe4 . And I didn't even use all the possible footage.

user-pic

Suzanne is being a little economical with the truth - yes, people lived there before the park was created but the VAST MAJORITY OF CURRENT RESIDENTS MOVED THERE AFTER THE PARK WAS CREATED. A simple review of city records proves this fact. Thus far, the only owner I have found that pre-dates the park is the church at the bottom of Gardner.