PROPOSED VESTAL/PRESTON DEVELOPMENT: LocalConstruct plans to build a 15-18 unit development replacing 5 lots between Vestal and Preston. "Blackbirds" will house 2 cars per unit + 4 visitor spaces. 30-40 more cars will be added to the traffic on Vestal, Baxter, Preston and Avalon. Although the architecture and concept is a good one, we want to see "Blackbirds" succeed by downsizing to no more than 10 units and 8 structures.
Even without direct vehicle access from Preston Ave., the residents of the development will find a way to create at least a foot path so that they can park on Preston. I agree that we will have to have permitted resident and guests of residents parking on all surrounding streets. Our request should be that residents of the development do not get resident permits or any guest parking permits and that developers provide at least one guest parking space in addition to their 2 parking places for each unit.
ReplyDeleteThis development needs at least two exits. Right now they plan to only have one on Vestal- near the corner of Baxter and Vestal. Speeding is already an issue on Baxter Street and an increase in traffic means a possible increase in speeding cars going way too fast up and down the hill. I'd like to see speed bumps, slow down signs, and a school zone sign at the bottom of Baxter and anything else geared toward making people slow down.
ReplyDeleteFire Dept. is against speed bumps, but slow down & school signs is an excellent suggestion. I face death every day when backing out onto Vestal - not knowing if cars are coming up either way. Because I'm at the apex of the hill, my view is obstructed. Slow down signs on both ends of Vestal might help. Go to this website: http://ladot.lacity.org/tf_Speed_Humps.htm
DeleteI live on PrestonAve. when ever theres a local party we home owners have no where to park. I even had a vehicle park their car in my driveway on Armitage I was like how dare they. I contacted LAPD they refured me to an 800 # to file a complaint. now if we cant take care of vehicles blocking our property, how can we depend that the developers and their new tenants will follow the rules
DeleteThey don't..... this development like all the others will get the OKED rubber stamp of GEPENC/EPIA alike. Its all about the property values. As a property owner I should be happy. BUT money to me does not equal happiness. I like my quiet surrounding community. The fix people must be creaming their Jeans, more $$$$ for them. JMO
Perhaps a future goal would be to change the zoning to prevent over-building on hilly sections. (It probably would be an uphill battle, given the recession. The city needs tax revenue.)
ReplyDeletethe law was changed a while back 2-3 yrs ago. the small lot development law. Now why would the city change that when the developers are keeping certain candidates in pocket money.
DeleteAfter looking at the development borders on the pic, I see that an entrance and exit are planned for lower part of apex on Vestal in front of the apartments. This looks dangerous because of cars from the apartments in front of that spot - more cars exiting/entering on both sides of street.
ReplyDeleteThe entrance should be at the apex of the hill where only a single home exists across the street. They need to build an expanded entrance/driveway allowing for cars to pull to the side when faced with oncoming vehicles. No parking would be allowed there (with driveways on both sides of Vestal's apex).... more drivable space at the apex means increased safety potential. If it's both an entrance and exit to the complex - there could be increased danger, but a sufficient allowance of paved space at a reasonable setback may neutralize that danger. A circular driveway (one-way entrance & separate one-way exit elsewhere) is an option, and would cut car movement at Vestal's apex in half, but increase movement elsewhere - albeit in only one direction.
I am all in favor of a new Development of 9 housing units with 2 parking spaces for each house plus 5 guest parking spaces.
ReplyDeleteI feel like I'm not understanding the parking issue as well as I could from these documents. Seems to me that there are currently 6 houses with no garages, is that accurate? So if the development provides parking for each house, isn't that an improvement? Sorry, I might be dense --- but I'm only seeing MORE parking and not LESS.
ReplyDeleteNo, you're not dense. You would think that provided on-site parking would solve the problem. It's more complex than that when you look at the reality. The old homes on the Vestal side of the land already had driveways to park off from the street. There never was a big problem. The developers want to have stacked parking where one car parks behind another. That's 36 cars plus visitors. (If they cut it down to 15 units, it's still a load of 30+ more cars.) Also there's mention of a fire hydrant being put on the Vestal side - further eliminating street parking.
DeleteWhat we'll see is what is happening with the Vestal apartments across the street from the proposed development. Those apartments have stacked parking. However, the reality is that nobody wants to park behind someone and decides it's better to use the street without the inconvenience of having to ask someone to move their car in order to get out. The street is their solution but a problem for others. The worse time is on week-ends and after work hours.
Stacked parking compounds the problems of many Vestal/Preston residents who have no parking at all on their land. They have to search for street parking, often circling the block after work to find parking. The street parking situation is bad enough already but with more cars it'll be far worse. This will not only affect Vestal but also Preston and Baxter.
Increased traffic and safety problems are the main concern. There'll be much more traffic and less street parking affecting streets beyond the development. Baxter Montessori School already has a dangerous situation with parents letting kids in/out from Baxter or backing out of the alley onto Baxter. Elysian Heights and Head Start have children and parents walking to and from the schools -- some driving.
With streets lined up with more parked cars and more traffic, emergency vehicles will have even a tougher time getting through the narrow hilly streets. There're bound to be even more accidents. Driving up Avalon to Vestal is already a danger.
The developers have good intentions - most residents like their ideas and design on the whole. That's not really a problem for anyone. It's so much better than other developments. However, we'd all like to see them scale down the units so that safety/traffic/parking problems will be less of a negative impact on the community. We'd like them to re-design their plans and still make a profit. But safety and traffic must come first. It's our community to protect.
Regarding traffic flow and safety conditions -- I'm less concerned with the number of units built (18 vs.15 vs. 10, etc) and more with the ingress/egress driveway design at Vestal Avenue's crest. The LA Times published a notification that the project is seeking a zoning variance to change the Vestal frontage building setback from the legally required 15-feet down to 6-feet (among other setback variances I will not address here). I have been opposed to this particular variance as it would push the building closer to the street than any other structure on the block - thereby interfering with the neighborhood character and spaciousness that is so appealing (while also setting a precedent for future projects).
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me the most logical compromise between maximizing project square footage and addressing traffic safety and parking concerns at the crest of Vestal Ave would be to allow the 6-foot setback variance (at Vestal's crest) on the condition that the street be widened by approximately 9-feet along both sides of the ingress/egress driveway. This would essentially put the Vestal frontage structure in the same spot if no street widening or setback variance were approved.
Widening the street along the blind crest would allow cars to pass each other while maintaining much needed curbside parking. The 6-foot setback variance would help make up for lost square footage due to street widening while maintaining neighborhood character and spaciousness. Simultaneously, doing so would cause the project to improve safety conditions along that dangerous blind crest.
Widening the street along the blind crest is a good idea, but a reduction of units from 18 to NO MORE THAN 10-15 units would address the severe traffic/street circulation problems that more than 36 cars will cause. Reducing units will alleviate most of the problems and make this development welcomed as new neighbors!
DeleteThis is f^*&*ing ludicrous. 18 units? 36 cars? This neighborhood is going down and before you know it, people won't want to deal with the traffic cluster FUC*k.
ReplyDeleteI am a Vestal Home owner. Please, everyone go to the town hall meeting thursday feb 28th at 9:30 am. 200 n. spring st, rm 1050. Keeping up on the townhall meetings and not letting them get waivers for zoning will help our streets have more appeal and value. It's the best we can do at this point.