Many residents of University City are trying to preserve the character of their neighborhood. Some want to keep Rose Canyon bridge-free, others hope that historical property is not altered, and a number of people are alarmed at the community’s growing high density and traffic problems.
But they all have one thing in common: the amount of time and energy they dedicate to making a difference. That was clear at the University Community Planning Group’s (UCPG) monthly meeting on Oct. 10.
After a sub-committee spent more than a month reviewing a draft environmental impact report (EIR) for north University City’s Monte Verde project, the UCPG voted 10-2 to send a 25-page letter detailing the shortfalls of the document to the city’s Land Development Review Division
“I think this is a project of huge concern to this community,” said UC resident Debbie Knight at the meeting. “There is a very big issue with this EIR in that it just glosses issues over and uses certain language to smooth away problems. It is of incredible importance because this is the future of this community.”
The proposed project, an 800-unit residential complex that would consist of four 32- to 35-story high-rise buildings on Genesee Avenue in north UC, was presented to the city in April 2003 by Garden Communities, a New Jersey-based company that also owns the Costa Verde residential apartments and shopping center, and several condominiums.
University City’s community plan lists the land as the site for a hotel building. Garden Communities, however, aims to amend the original plan, changing the land use from commercial-visitor to residential.
“They want to change the specific plan and eliminate the requirement for a hotel on that site, and they need to change the community plan at the same time and that is part of the process that they are going through right now,” said Tim Daly, the development project manager.
The change would also increase the density level for the 4.46-acre parcel to more than 168 units per square foot, exceeding the 75-unit-per-square-foot limit set forth in the plan, according to Linda Colley, the UCPG chair.
“The focal point of our concern is the size, bulk and density level of the project on such a small piece of property,” Colley said. “These buildings will be taller than some in downtown San Diego.”
That, however, is just the beginning of the committee’s gripes with the draft EIR.
Open space and park areas are required to be incorporated in building projects. The draft EIR briefly outlines plans for open common space at Monte Verde, but the area assigned for the space would be unusable because of the wind-tunnel effect, according to Colley.
The UCPG requested that an official study of the wind-tunnel effect be included in the draft EIR, but it was not provided in the document, Colley said.
Garden Communities has stated its intention to provide funding for parks and open space in the draft EIR, but environmental studies show no land available in the area.
In addition, the UCPG letter to the city points to ambiguous and contradictory statements in the draft EIR, including wording that makes it unclear to the reader exactly how many people per unit may reside in the buildings. This makes it difficult to gauge how much traffic will be generated by the project, Colley said.
“There is incredible growth but no one’s monitoring the traffic,” Colley said. “It’s a big disservice to the community and no one wants to look at that ” and they really need to.”
Elizabeth Shearer-Nguyen, environmental planner for the City’s Land Development Review Division, has collaborated with city officials on the draft EIR and will draw up the final version.
“We are in the process of responding to the comments received about the project,” Shearer-Nguyen said. “We did get quite a few and I have to go through all of them. I’m not exactly sure when it [the EIR] will be finalized.”
Although all comments for the draft were supposed to be submitted to the city by Sept. 27, UCPG’s sub-committee got an extension so that the entire committee could review and vote on the letter. The committee did not receive a copy of the draft EIR until the end of August, Colley said.
“It’s amazing the city gets to spend over a year to write this, and the community has less than a month to review it,” Colley said. “And it’s amazing how little community outreach was done for this project.”
After a final EIR is presented to UCPG, it will go to the City’s Planning Commission and then receive a final vote from City Council. Both hearings are open to the public.
Concerned residents should attend the November UCPG meeting and voice their opinion on the project to the board, Colley said. She also encourages people to contact Councilman Scott Peters.
Colley said that, regardless of what happens, she refuses to give up the fight.
“The question really becomes, ‘Do the concerns of this community really matter?'” she asked. “I have no problem with them building here, but they need to do it with taste, and they need to listen to the community. I’m definitely not alone in my thinking.”