Today, there’s a good number of depressed residents from two of San Diego’s neighborhoods, Hillcrest and University City. It was yesterday, June 13, that the key City Council Land Use & Housing Committee bulldozed over their concerns and unanimously approved plans that would literally double the number of residents within their communities.
Now that the committee approved the plans — without any changes — they will go before the City Council and likely be okayed by the full nine-member council in July.
Under the plans approved yesterday, University City would see more than an additional 64,200 residents, nearly doubling the neighborhood’s current population of 65,400, with an influx of just over 30,000 housing units. And many of those new units will be in high-rises.
The city plan for Hillcrest would swell the population of Uptown — a wider area that also includes University Heights, Mission Hills and Bankers Hill — from about 40,000 to more than 100,000 by 2050. This would be accomplished by the addition of 17,000 new homes, some of them in buildings with 20 stories or more.
Those residents from both neighborhoods had their concerns about gentrification, congestion, evacuation routes, insufficient parks and major street changes just quashed, with the vote being simply a rubber-stamp of Mayor Gloria’s grand plan for the city.
David Garrick at the U-T described the hearing in uncritical glowing terms and highlighted council members’ rationale.
Council members said the two neighborhoods are ideal for high-rise housing and dense development because they are already job centers in appealing locations with strong demand for housing. “Both Hillcrest and University City are amongst the few areas with a high propensity for homes and services,” said Councilmember Kent Lee, whose district includes University City.
Councilmember Stephen Whitburn said it makes sense to add significantly more housing in both neighborhoods because San Diego is experiencing a housing crisis that threatens everyone, young and old. “The reality is San Diego’s high housing costs are pricing out residents who live here, sometimes with tragic consequences,” said Whitburn, referring to seniors on fixed incomes who become homeless. “I want our city to embrace our older San Diegans who retired here and our younger San Diegans who want to stay here.”
Other supporters of the plans have characterized Hillcrest and University City as the two city neighborhoods that could best be described as second downtowns for San Diego.
Garrick and the council and other city officials consoled the losers of the vote — the actual residents of Uptown and University City – with the points that “both plans are 30-year visions that are unlikely to have immediate impacts that would damage community character.” Garrick wrote:
A similar update to the growth blueprint for downtown approved in 2000 allowed housing for 90,000 new residents — but 24 years later, the neighborhood has added fewer than half that many people.
A new growth blueprint approved for Kearny Mesa in 2020 allows 20,000 new homes. So far, none have been built.
Both plans allow dense development in dozens of new places, but officials said that’s to give developers a lot of choices in the hopes they will at least take advantage of a few.
“Planning capacity is extremely different than housing production,” said Heidi Vonblum, the city’s planning director. “These are long-range plans that are built on assumptions. This plans for the opportunity for things to occur, but certainly does not mandate anything to occur.”
That’s quite a mouthful. These plans just allow things to occur by chance, and “certainly does not mandate anything to occur.” How about the opportunity to build new downtowns?
That’s Gloria’s vision: to build two new downtowns – UC and Uptown. Forget the residents who don’t want to live in any downtown – they’re just being NIMBYs.
Concerned residents were also consoled by the “new downtown” proponents that “residential areas in both neighborhoods would be mostly preserved.” As Garrick outlined:
More than 95 percent of the new housing proposed for University City is in the community’s northern section near the trolley line, leaving mostly single-family-zoned south University City relatively unchanged in some ways.
The high-rises proposed for Hillcrest are allowed only in community commercial areas, not areas zoned exclusively residential.
Another consolation for UC residents is the claim that the plan “would also aim to add about 72,000 new jobs by changing zoning in many places to allow developers to build 20 million more square feet of commercial projects.”
One concern of residents that Garrick focused on — at the exclusion of all the others – are the proposed street changes.
In Hillcrest, the new blueprint would make Robinson and University avenues one-way streets between First Avenue and 10th Avenue, with Robinson traffic moving east and University traffic moving west.
In University City, Governor Drive — the main east-west route in the southern part of the neighborhood — would be narrowed from four car lanes to two car lanes to make way for bicycle lanes.
Hillcrest resident Jacque Lynn Foltyn was quoted:
“There is no need to double the density of the past accepted development plan for Hillcrest. We don’t need a second downtown, and there’s already gridlock on University and Washington at rush hours.”
Jane Hargrove from University City was also quoted:
“It proposes Governor Drive be two lanes, which would cause horrendous congestion and deadly circumstances if we needed to evacuate.”
Garrick also gave some light to the opposition at the end of his article:
But the outgoing planning group for Hillcrest and the neighboring area, Uptown Planners, was harshly critical. The group is being replaced by a more development-friendly community planning group.
“This proposal would not materially address the city’s housing affordability crisis but rather worsen it, due to the incentivized loss of naturally occurring affordable housing and higher rents that will result from instantly increased land values,” the group said in a statement.
The planning group for University City lobbied for a plan with less density. They suggested adding a more modest 22,500 homes and 55,000 jobs.
For details on the Hillcrest proposal, visit planhillcrest.org.
For details on the University City proposal, visit planuniversity.org.
What’s depressing for concerned residents of UC and Uptown is that these proposals to double the densities with high-rises just keep moving through the decision-making bodies of city government. Their concerns and reservations don’t gain traction and don’t seem to carry weight — even with their own councilmembers. And the mayor’s plan for two new downtowns just seems to keep bulldozing its way to reality.
And if that happens, we’ll all be depressed.
Of course, there is an election coming up — but in one perspective, that just adds to the depression. The mayor is only being challenged by someone with no experience in running a city.
But there is a truism here that is being seriously overlooked: it’s the right of people who live in a city to have an actual say in how the city is run and how the city treats its communities — other than with elections every 4 years for politicians who can ignore their constituents without sanction.
Doubling the population in either community will take decades, if it even happens. However, having large population targets allows for more areas in each community to be zoned for higher density.
This leads to “market planning” where large one off projects can be scattered throughout the community, based on where someone thinks they can make the highest return on their investment, not what is best for the community.
This is not strategic planning the people of these communities want and deserve. For whatever reason, San Diego has elected the wrong people to lead our City and I’m afraid we will do it again come November.
I live in the Hillcrest area and I think it is a great idea and so do many of the people I know who are also residents. Not all residents are for it I am sure but your article suggests that only the Mayor and Council want it and that just isn’t true
I too live in Hillcrest and I agree it seems to be pretty split down the middle, thos it’s a bogus claim that increased density will lower rents.
Appreciate the article but I am a Mission Hills resident not Hillcrest who has been actively involved In Uptown Community planning group that Todd Gloria and Steve Whitburn dissolved and replaced with a new planning group, with a different set of rules than any other SD planning group because of opposition to their newly proposed – and opposped – even higher density plan, designed by 20+ story-high-rise density
-oriented developers and architects. San Diego needs affordable housing not more housing, which will not be in Hillcrest. Check out the rents of the new Apts in Hillcrest. Jacque Lynn Foltyn, Mission Hills resident and homeowner.
The council members and the Mayor
probably live in condos or apartments
and could care less about another
living style.
I’ve lived and owned real property in Hillcrest for almost 30 years. I know what Hillcrest used to be and I can clearly see what it is becoming, that is, a thriving urban environment. There’s a frisson of excitement and new vibrancy in Hillcrest occasioned by these changes. I whole heartedly support the plan for increased density and I welcome the development of new properties, residential and commercial, on derelict and under-used parcels of land.
I recognize however that my perspective is different from most. Before I moved here, I lived in midtown Manhattan for 15 years. While Hillcrest will never come close to being NYC, adopting some elements of it will serve this community well into the 21st Century. Some people need to understand that time will never stand still despite all best efforts.
As a long time resident of uptown, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Hillcrest has fallen so far in the past 20 years. It used to be a hotspot for dining that has been replaced by Little Italy. There are very few decent restaurants, the streets are filthy, and homeless abound. Yesterday we were treated to non-stop rantings of a mentally ill or dug addicted individual screaming outside of our condo building all day. Pretty sure your reason for supporting this nonsense is due to your property values increasing as this will most definitely not lead to more “affordable” housing.
That individual was probably Gene.
You have a point.
When I lived in University City-Philadelphia, it was affordable.
Then, a lovely and renovated row home with three bedrooms was just
right. Now, it’s a very expensive neighborhood.
By the time I arrived here in 2009, I was a long term renter and it suited
my pocketbook and circumstances to rent in Ocean Beach.
Due to many factors, this is no longer the case and I’ll will be joining the exodus leaving the state.
I look forward to living comfortably with the space I need and no airplanes directly overhead, though I’ll miss friends and the ocean.
Tessa, I walked away in 1987 after living my entire life (up to then) in OB and MB. And yes, I still miss all the friends that I lost contact with afterwards as my presence faded from their minds, and most definitely I will always miss the ocean I grew up by and in.
I don’t, however, miss the ever-present fiberglass itch of running Seal’s Ding Repair all those years, and most definitely I do not miss the incredibly debilitating noise of those damned jets overhead. I look out the window and see forest, smell clean air, rarely hear a plane overhead much less a huge jetliner, and get to watch Mama moose and her baby trying to reach over the veggie garden fence for a snack.
Luckily, so far anyway, no sociopathic Investment Group or Hedge Fund is trying to ‘develop’ these mountains though there are LLCs reaching their greedy fingers in certain areas. The county has grown now to 49,000 people (+/-) which means a population density of about 18 people per mile. The largest town, the county seat, has just over 4,500 people. The county is 2,477 sq miles stretching from the top of Spokane County to the Canadian Border. In other words, I found a good spot!
___
But a Question for these San Diego officials:
Where is all the water that will be needed for these ‘improvements’ going to come from? The Colorado River is seriously over-allocated and is literally losing water as the climate destabilizes, and there just isn’t any other major water sources to draw from other than that.
Just the 60,000 more in University City will require over 3 BILLION gallons per year (given the 150 gallons per day per person number from 2022).
I remember what it looked like when my dad bought that house in UC in 1970 before the canyons were filled up with houses and streets. It was SCRUB LAND!
And a total of 100,000 people in the Hillcrest area would need over 5.5 BILLION gallons a year.
Are you people nucking futs? You live in a DESERT, doesn’t anybody understand Geography??? I’m damned sure your leaders, owners, and masters of all they survey sure don’t understand this concept. Not when it comes to lining their pockets with their ill-gotten gains and ignoring reality.
The wealthy rulers of San Diego are exhibiting the mentality of a cancer cell. Mark my words, this will NOT end well.
sealintheSelkirks
Here is where the fight against the Planning Commission bulldozing the concerns of residents and rubbing-stamping development plans should start: attack with vigor and relentlessness YIMBY Democrats of San Diego. They own our politicians.
This group, like its various iterations in California, is an astro-turf organization funded by big tech and big developer money. They pretend to want to want to ‘build build build’ to bring down housing costs, and have latched onto the call for affordable housing to legitimize their agenda, which is solely to serve the housing needs of the tech sector/elite while bedding down with big developers to achieve that end game.
Todd Gloria is in the back pocket of these folks, and declares himself a proud YIMBY. Learn about these people to know who your enemy is:
https://www.housingisahumanright.org/california-yimby-joins-corporate-landlords-to-kill-rent-control-measure/
https://www.housingisahumanright.org/what-is-a-yimby-hint-its-not-good/
I’m a YIMBY Dem because I support more housing. I don’t work for “big tech”, I’m not a developer – I work at UCSD, and I’ve watched a lot of staff leave because they can’t afford to live here, which negatively impacts the students we serve.
I’d love to see all new housing be affordable. San Diego voters failed to pass even a modest affordable housing measure in 2020. Subsidized units cost up to $1M/unit, yet my (wealthy) established neighbors in Kensington/Talmadge have said in public meetings they don’t want to pay any more property taxes (despite these being absurdly low due to Prop 13) for subsidized housing. So nothing, or very little, gets built. And that’s why the state RHNA requirements are for the city of San Diego to build 108K units by 2029, a pace we’re already well behind.
How many “least affordable in the US” lists does San Diego have to appear on before we build the housing necessary for our workforce (not just big tech) here? These Plan updates are 2 badly overdue steps in the right direction.
Please stop calling people who support housing “developer shills” or “bedding down with developers”, and we’ll stop calling you NIMBYs.
The problem is almost none — or none — of the housing is affordable! The developers are going hog wild demolishing established neighborhood and building high rises, covering lots, providing no patking, and building luxuriois unaffordable housing. When they are required to build at least a portion affordable, some agree and receive their permits, and then claim they can’t afford the affordable and do a bait and switch and say they’ll build affordable out somewhere like Santee.
I suspect this must be the only “Paul” who still hears me calling him a “developer shill” — even when that term isn’t used, yet always replies as if it was — years after the fact.
A person is a YIMBY Dem when that’s where the real money in their rentier DINK household is. When they are literally employed in “big tech” for UCSD. When they misrepresent their history of sinking rent control efforts and berate their single-family homeowner neighbors in KenTal from their single-family home in Normal Heights. When they persist with the lies I’ve already exposed the regarding the farce of RHNA numbers, https://obrag.org/2022/08/the-bad-math-and-bad-faith-behind-san-diegos-housing-policies/. And most of all when they cry crocodile tears that there are still impediments to the maximum extraction of private profit from the commons.
Frankly, I don’t care what you or any of your equally discreditable confederates call me: the truth hurts, you are a developer shill, and you’ll say whatever puts money on your dresser.
Right you are, Ron. It’s disingenuous to say “people are split down the middle” on density. People realize it’s more of the same lie they’ve been told about what they already see happening for themselves.
Once people hear about the plans to remove parking from University and Robinson Avenues to make them one-way, and to reduce Washington Street to two lanes from four, and the only ones left who support this developer scheme are the beneficiaries themselves or the YIMBY useful idiots they subsidize.
I would love if they reduced Washington Street to two lanes from four. I hadn’t heard that before. Now I’m more in favor of the plan than ever!
Of course you do! You wouldn’t want to be a traitor to your rentier class!
As a Hillcrestst resident I can say from personal experience it does seem (seem being the key word) nearly half the residents I talk to want the increased density. Most of those who want it seem (again seem being a key word) to be under 40. Perhaps it’s a generational thing?
Of course it is. . .with a few notable exceptions
As a lifelong California resident I have historical memory that the ‘build build build’ model of years past, which preceded YIMBYs, has never brought down the price of housing, not even a little bit. What I have seen is decreased quality of life for residents– congestion, overcrowding, general ugliness, and ever-spiraling housing prices. If YIMBYs truly aren’t shills and believe that building more housing will bring down prices, they are laboring under a naive assumption which has been disproven time and again over the decades in popular coastal cities in California.
I understand younger people buying into the mindset that supply-and-demand lowers prices– that can work in other places–but they have no lived experience of the impact of exponential development in California and how it has done absolutely nothing to lower housing prices. It only overburdens existing infrastructure and quality of life.
Affordable housing should be built for those who actually need to live where they work. It is not San Diego’s job to forever absorb all who want to live here. That approach is has proven to be baldly unsustainable.
Well said, Ron.
Greed is driving this expansion drive. Some developers live out of state and some out of city, and many are contributing to the campaigns of the politicians behind this scam; their ambitions are Sacramento and the national scene and they will leave the disaster behind them.
I am not against development. I am against doubling the agreed upon development.