Is Universal’s Expansion Still a Blockbuster?

Responding to complaints by neighbors and a request by County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and City Council President John Ferraro, Universal Studios this month unveiled a plan to cut its proposed $1-billion expansion project by 44%.

The scaled-back version would eliminate plans for a new children’s theme park and trim by about one-third the number of new hotel rooms to 1,200. The blueprint also calls for sharply reduced noise coming from current attractions and would place height limits on new buildings.

Although neighborhood groups applaud the reductions, concerns about noise and traffic persist. Supporters, however, cite Universal’s willingness to address neighbors’ complaints and to shrink its expansion as proof of the studio’s good faith.

Is Universal Studios’ reduced expansion plan a better one for the Valley?

Krista Michaels, president of the Cahuenga Pass Property Owners’ Assn.

“The reduced plan preserves the entertainment industry and fosters healthy growth in an area that provides jobs for the residents of the Valley. We’re in favor of a healthy economic climate. But we are opposed to making Magic Mountain in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood. . . . It’s appropriate that they eliminate the children’s venue. We still have grave concerns about their ability to mitigate the traffic and noise. We see nothing in the draft environmental impact report that addresses noise and traffic.”

Tony Lucente, president of the Studio City Residents Assn.:

“[The plan] absolutely is better for the Valley. It provides a framework which can lead to completion of this project. However, there are a lot of specifics and details that need to be carefully reviewed, especially in the traffic and transportation area. . . . Universal has reduced the scope and size of the project, so it’s at a level that is more manageable. We can talk seriously about making this a reality.”

Denise Coleman, co-chairwoman of Universal City Tomorrow:

“I would like to have seen the original plan en forced because it would have seen to the improvement of the employment situation in the Valley. It would certainly have helped the entertainment industry to stay in Southern California. I’m delighted that Universal did respond to comments from the community. They were responsive and I congratulate them on that. I hate one element that went away: the children’s theme park. It will probably be built somewhere else.”

Brent Seltzer, member of the Studio City Residents Assn.:

“I think it’s an incredibly generous plan for the Valley. When I look at the reduced plan, they’re putting in all the mitigation that was in the original plan. The expansion is long overdue. . . . Studio City was born and built out of Universal Studios and we need to support them. We should all muster that cooperative spirit and come across to each other the way Universal has with the community in accepting this reduction, while still putting in all the mitigations. They’re spending a whole lot more money than they’re getting back, and they’re not fighting it.”