development. That wasn't clear without architectural drawings and
renderings.
Further, the height of at least one of the buildings appeared
excessive and far more intense than was anticipated by area
residents. While we live only a few houses north of Oak Street and
had requested to be notified of all meetings regarding the project,
there were apparently several meetings that we were not informed
about.
Even though this project is going to generate somewhere between
2,300-3,000 vehicular trips per day, according to Platt and the city
planners, all these cars are supposed to disappear between Alameda
before you get north of Oak Street, just one short block or
residential homes.
When the Media District Specific Plan was prepared, it
specifically included our neighborhood as well. While the Media
District Specific Plan is now well over a dozen years old, the
traffic congestion has increased tremendously since its origin.
It was initially intended to provide adequate growth for the three
major studios, but was never intended to overwhelm and drive out the
neighboring residential community. The views of the mountains for the
residents nearest the project are very important as is the air
circulation, especially with the increased number of idling vehicles
during peak times.
The Barham pass cannot accommodate the amount of development that
has already been approved in the Media District. Most days, from Lima
and on over Barham, traffic is piled up huffing and puffing from 6
p.m. The same is true along Barham trying to get onto Riverside Drive
with folks wanting to go to the West Valley.
What is so amazing is the small amount of parking at the rail
stations in North Hollywood and Universal to encourage ridership on
the millions that was spent to supposedly reduce traffic congestion.
My belief is that the project should be purely residential, with
the church amenities, and the project should be downsized so that if
they do plan to have any ground floor retail, like a Starbucks that
was discussed, the public should be able to park on the street to
access whatever retail/restaurant entities are available. Without
this, how can it possibly be said to be pedestrian friendly?
Even the parks, if there is no public on-street parking, how can
that be considered pedestrian friendly? Are all these amenities just
for the people who reside on the site? A planned development that
grants more than the on-site zoning would otherwise grant under
California land use law is supposed to provide amenities to the
