Dear Friends of UC,
On Tuesday April 16 University Community Plan Update Subcommittee listened to the public's comments on the draft Community Plan and EIR. You can find these documents at planuniversity.org/materials. Community comments on these documents are due by Monday, April 29, 2024.
Help Save UC commented on several aspects at the meeting. You can view a recording of the meeting here:
We are working diligently to review these documents. Our plan is to share our comments with the community before the April 29th deadline so that community members can consider submitting similar comments if they agree with our conclusions. The documents are lengthy and dense, but we are working as quickly and thoroughly as we can so we can share information with you as soon as possible.
For now, here is a brief summary of what we are seeing:
1. In the Draft Plan, the City rejected the vast majority of our prior suggestions. For example, for the Sprouts and Vons shopping centers on Governor Drive, HSUC had suggested maximum densities of 29 and 54 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), respectively, and height limits of 40 and 50 feet with 30-foot setbacks. The proposed Plan zones both shopping centers for densities of 73 du/ac with 100-foot height limits and 20-foot setbacks. HSUC plans to reiterate our prior requests, especially given that these numbers will most certainly increase with the “Complete Communities” density bonus program.
2. Other concerns with the Draft Plan include the City’s minimal response to public comment and inadequate assurance of affordable housing in the plan. There are also no considerations for the addition of any meaningful parks or schools, nor any assurances of additional police and fire services to serve the projected 30,000 new dwellings.
3. In the Draft EIR, it appears that the City performed little to no quantitative analysis of the environmental impacts of adding 30,000 more dwelling units (potentially doubling the current population of the area — or more). Most of the City’s “analysis” is qualitative with the catch-22 conclusion that the City can’t do a specific analysis because it doesn’t know what will actually be built. HSUC believes that for a program-level EIR (meaning future projects will not need their own EIR), the City must do an analysis of the quantitative impacts assuming full build-out of the Plan. We also disagree with the City’s conclusion that the High Density alternative is more environmentally friendly (presumably based on the assumption that more people will take public transit). While higher density development may lead to greater numbers taking public transit, there is no analysis of the other environmental impacts of the additional population, including by those residents who will not take public transit.
We will continue to work on these efforts and will share our comments with you as soon as we can.
Sincerely,
Help Save UC