From UC Neighbors for Responsible Growth, aka UC PEEPS
Disappointing but not surprising, the San Diego Planning Commission passed the University Community Plan Update 4-0 last Thursday, May 31, with two members absent, despite extensive opposition, the absence of a final Program EIR, a rushed approval process, and hearing three major land use proposals all on the same day.
The Commissioners chose to ignore the many strong points made about the flaws and consequences of the Plan Update, and instead rushed it through to a vote without the thought, questioning and analysis that a plan of this magnitude would normally require. It seemed clear the outcome was pre-determined.
UC PEEPS members Bonnie Kutch, Michael Kozma and Julie Meier-Wright made a compelling, 12-minute PowerPoint presentation that you can view HERE.
Andy Wiese made an outstanding 7-minute presentation on behalf of UCPG and the UCP Subcommittee, making reasonable recommendations and, in particular, pointing to what makes the Parks Plan exceptionally deficient. Linda Beresford also made an excellent 6-minute presentation on behalf of Help Save UC. Many others made powerful in-person comments, as well as virtual comments via Zoom.
We want to thank the many people who graciously ceded their time to UC PEEPS, traveling downtown to sit through an uncomfortable, discouraging meeting. We are tremendously grateful to all of you, and are committed to fighting for our community to the end. Let’s not give up hope!
What’s Next?
The San Diego Land Use & Housing Committee will hear the UC Plan Update on Thursday, June 13th at 1:00 p.m. UC PEEPS will be making yet another, customized presentation. We will be sending out an email in the near future that has full details. Once again, we will be asking for people to cede their time.
In mid or late July, the UC Plan Update will go to San Diego City Council for approval or possible delay. Again, we will keep you posted on the details of this critical meeting.
Please keep the faith, and encourage your neighbors to get involved if they aren’t already!
UC Neighbors for Responsible Growth, aka UC PEEPS
Here’s their email address: universitycitypeeps@gmail.com
Both the University Community Plan Update and the Hillcrest Focused Plan Amendment were approved based on Blueprint SD being green-lighted at the same meeting. It is appalling that Blueprint SD was approved at all given that the EIR was only in draft form and the Planning Department has yet to respond to 1207 pages of comments, questions and criticisms from all facets of the public.
To add insult to injury, Blueprint SD is based on outdated SANDAG Series 14 population projections for San Diego, which are significantly higher than current Series 15 projections. Current Series 15 projections anticipate the City of San Diego will have 230,000 less people to house in 2050 versus Series 14 and growth will be at a rate of 4.8% versus 20% from 2022 to 2024. Once again, San Diego is using outdated, inflated population projections to justify upzoning large swaths of the city when it is unjustified. The Commissioners claim this level of development is required to make up for years of under-building, but current vacancy rates in new apartment complexes do not support this rationalization.
Another problem with Blueprint SD is that its maps are based on transit being built between now and 2050 that is currently unfunded and may never be funded. Similarly, all of the City’s zoning linked to Sustainable Development Areas is based on existing and planned “major transit stops,” whether or not there are any funds to make those transit stops a reality. This means that builders will have the green light to build high density developments in areas where “major transit stops” may not exist within a mile of the projects before, during or after they are completed. This would contribute to more auto traffic and greenhouse gas emissions because the developments may never be served by transit. And all of this assumes that residents will be willing to walk or “roll” up to a mile to get to the transit, if or when it becomes available and if it takes them where they need to go in an efficient and cost effective manner.
Bottom line, Blueprint SD is based on outdated, inflated population projections and questionable, unfunded transit assumptions. The Draft EIR has over a thousand pages of unanswered concerns. It is on this basis that the Planning Commission felt comfortable approving the University and Hillcrest Community Plan Updates. The University Plan approval is particularly troubling because that EIR neglected to include the community’s preferred plan for comparison, despite the Planning Department committing to do so. For all of these reasons, the Planning Commission’s vote on all three of these items was premature at best and ill-informed overall.
Blueprint SD should be updated with current population projections and funded transit and then should it be subject to an EIR. Only when that EIR is FINALIZED, should the University and Hillcrest Community Plan updates be evaluated.
Commissioner Boomhower mentioned that there were over 2000 pages of comments regarding the University Community Plan Update. If nothing else, the quantity of public comments demonstrates the intense care about this plan’s repercussions. A complete EIR should be absolutely crucial to recommend approval for a plan that so many community members care so deeply about.
RE:COMMISSIONER BOOMHOWER
“it’s only fair to ask who is influencing his pro-developer position. Boomhower, and all planning commissioners, should immediately disclose any and all contacts they’ve had with any entity who has financial ties, direct or indirect,” ??..
I’m going cross eyed with frustration to read that anyone is questioning why Planning Commissioners seem to be so “pro-development “.
KELLY MODEN- VICE CHAIR OF PLANNING COMMISSION is quoted saying
Commissioner Kelly Moden also had a broader message for residents who oppose updating the growth blueprints based on fear of changes to their neighborhood’s current character and way of life.
“It will take years if not decades to even see any kind of tangible impact to the community,” said Moden, stressing the 30-year time horizons of both plans. “It takes a long time for land to get turned over and redeveloped.”
TY Planning Commission Vice Chair @moden_kelly for dispelling myths about affordable housing in the UC plan update today! Reality: the entire City of San Diego has a 10% inclusionary housing requirement. She said, “all housing is good housing.”
Spoken like a true developer. That’s because the COMMISSIONER is a DEVELOPER.
She currently has a project under construction at Broadway & 19th St in Golden Hill.. Utilizing incentives for developers, it is 91 UNITS; 8 STORIES; NO SETBACKS ; NO REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE ON-SITE PARKING..
It’s quite obvious why Commisioners seem so “Pro-Development “.