Despite a strong presentation from Garden Communities that advocated its proposed Monte Verde project in University City would allow residents to walk more and use cars less, the University Community Planning Group (UCPG) voted Tuesday, Nov. 14, to hold off on its recommendation on the project.
Monte Verde, which was first introduced to the city by the New Jersey-based company in 2003, would consist of two 32-foot and two 35-foot residential towers on a 4.46-acre parcel at the corner of Genesee Avenue and La Jolla Village Drive. The project spurred a crowd of more than 40 UC residents to speak out at Tuesday’s meeting.
“We’d be making a decision on incomplete, unclear and fuzzy information and that would be negligent of us,” UCPG vice-chair Petr Krysl said about the project.
The planning group voted to wait in making a recommendation to the city about the project until the final environmental impact report is released, which won’t be for another two months, according to Madeleine Baudoin, representative for District 1 City Councilman and Council President Scott Peters. Peters will not take a position on the issue until the final EIR is complete, Baudoin said.
The draft EIR for the project was reviewed by the UCPG in September, and last month the board submitted a 25-page letter to the city with questions and concerns about the document.
Stuart Posnack, a representative for Garden Communities — which also owns Costa Verde residential apartments and shopping center — attended the meeting with other project officials to ask the board for approval of an amendment to both the original community plan and the Costa Verde specific plan, which would change the land use from commercial-visitor to residential.
“If you simplify this project to its simplest terms, it’s changing a hotel site to a residential site,” Posnack said. “I’ve been here 20 times as of tonight and I’ve been as honest, up-front and transparent as I can.”
Both Posnack and Martin Poirier, the project’s architect, lauded the pedestrian footbridge, improved traffic intersections, public parks and on-site artwork as benefits of the project.
Many residents and several board members voiced concerns about the length of construction time, which Posnack confirmed could total five and a half years, as well as the height of the towers potentially causing a wind tunnel effect and altering the character of University City.
The parcel of land for the Monte Verde project was intended as a site for a hotel, according to the community and specific plans. Amending the plans would cause the density level to go up to 168-units-per-acre, which would exceed the 75-units-per-acre limit for that specific piece of land, according to Dan Monroe, a representative from the City of San Diego Planning Department who sits on the UCPG board.
Posnack’s lawyer Paul Robinson, who also was present at the meeting, disagreed with the UCPG board and said amending the plan would not cause a higher density level.
Bruce McIntyre, Posnack’s private consultant who helped contribute to the draft EIR and will work on the final document, conducted a study on the wind tunnel effect for Monte Verde.
He found that only two areas of the project site — both in designated park spaces — would cause winds of up to 15 miles per hour, which are considered uncomfortable.
UCPG chair Linda Colley pointed out the parks and open space were useless if people could not enjoy them because of the wind tunnel effect. Another resident from the audience seconded her thought, saying that he needed more information about whether he would “blow away like Dorothy” while walking through the development before he could take a stance on the issue.
Colley also indicated that McIntyre, in both working for Posnack to conduct an environmental study and working with the city on the EIR for Monte Verde, may have a conflict of interest.
McIntyre admitted that he did “walk a fine line” when it came to that particular issue.
Marcela Escobar-Eck, San Diego’s director of development services who was present in the crowd, told UCPG members and residents: “At the end of the day, this is a product of the city.”
The city would be willing to have its officials who are handling the project EIR work more closely with the UCPG and community members, Escobar-Eck said.
UCPG decided that the board would invite representatives for Garden Communities to its monthly meeting when the final EIR had been released so that the company could more completely answer the board’s questions.
Peters will also aim to attend a UCPG meeting in the next several months to discuss the project with the board and residents, according to Baudoin.
The UCPG has received 74 e-mails from UC residents in opposition to the project, all sharing similar opinions to those shared at Tuesday’s meeting, according to Colley.
It is the UCPG’s job to stand up for its constituents’ concerns and needs, and the board plans to do that by pushing back its decision on the project, Colley said.
The board will meet next on Tuesday, Dec. 12, and welcomes UC residents.
The UCPG meets the second Tuesday of every month from 6 to 9 p.m. at the Westfield UTC Shoppingtown Forum Hall above the Wells Fargo Bank, 4545 La Jolla Village Drive.