Posted Tuesday, November 23, 2010 1:02 PM | Contributed by Jeff
A long-term plan for Universal Studios Hollywood envisions adding seven new theme park attractions over the next two decades while removing or relocating several studio backlot tour favorites, including the "Jaws" lake, the "War of the Worlds" disaster scene and the famed "Psycho" house and Bates Motel.
Read more from The LA Times.
Anbody else notice this? 39,000 pages?
Los Angeles city planners recently released a 39,000[url][url]-page draft environmental impact report identifying possible effects of the proposed development, including increased traffic, on the surrounding area.
Maybe they used a really big font.
They didn't, but they did include a lot of illustrations. The draft EIR itself is about 2,900 pages by itself, and the whole document includes lots of support material. I looked it up just to see if the page count was even possible, and unfortunately I think it probably is.
You can examine the plan here: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/NBC_UnivPlan/DEIR/index.html
I've looked at Volume 1, Part II in the Draft EIR. It's only 90 pages or so, and gives some useful diagrams showing the overall plan. I don't fully understand what they are trying to accomplish, particularly establishing residential development that encroaches on the present space. I wonder if the residential development is intended to be rental housing for people who work at Universal City...
Universal has also put up a plan page at http://nbcuniversalevolution.com but initially at least it looks like there is more detail in the plan overview in the draft EIR.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.Last edited by RideMan, Saturday, November 27, 2010 1:07 AM
Ha! Makes the Reedy Creek Improvement District seem simple now!
You think Disney has to go through that much paperwork with RCID when they want to do stuff? The RCID *is* a simpler arrangement than what Universal has to deal with. In fact, one of the things that Universal wants to do is to fix the governance structure...parts of the property are in the City of Los Angeles, while other parts are in Los Angeles County, and they want to make the jurisdictional boundaries fit more closely with the use boundaries within the property...since presumably they probably figure there is no chance of getting all of it into the county, and they probably don't want the backlot to be in the city...
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
You must be logged in to post