‘Update Process’ to University Community Plan Was Deceptive and Eroded Residents’ Trust in San Diego Government

By  Bonnie Kutch

Blame it on the “Strong Mayor System.”  With almost total administrative authority previously held by the city manager, and the power to appoint and dismiss department heads, one man alone has all but succeeded in pushing through what’s likely to be the most deceptive and destructive community plan update in San Diego’s history.

The University Community Plan Update, which goes before the San Diego City Council for a final vote on July 30th, would add 30,480 housing units to the existing 26,520 homes, swelling the population from 64,206 to 129,566 people – without adding the infrastructure needed to support such an enormous population increase.  The community, which already experiences heavy traffic congestion, has a limited traffic grid and sits within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

This is particularly true of the single-family neighborhoods in south University City, which are surrounded by canyons and open space and have just one east-west main arterial.

The University Community Plan Update process has largely ignored the reasonable and intelligent input of community residents who have been willing to accept their fair share of new housing. Rather, outside special interest groups have been allowed to dictate the outcome.

University City (UC) residents have called for responsible planning, with growth balanced with infrastructure, adequate parks and recreation centers, sufficient fire and police coverage, more much-needed schools, consideration of UC’s vulnerability to wildfires and earthquakes, new development in south UC’s single-family residential neighborhood that’s in scale with its surroundings, opportunities for home ownership, and affordable housing rather than simply more luxury apartments.

Most of all, residents have asked to be involved in the decision-making.

Hundreds of us joined in large protests against the city’s unreasonable proposals. Thousands more wrote opposition letters to city officials. We packed community meeting rooms and gave detailed presentations and comments during hearings.  Members of two community advocacy organizations, particularly UC Neighbors for Responsible Growth, a.k.a. UC PEEPS, have worked tirelessly to keep residents informed and engaged.

Instead, residents’ voices have been drowned out by a battalion of special interest groups affiliated with the growth and development industries. Circulate San Diego, which is largely funded by the building industry, played the lead role.

For example, Circulate San Diego collaborated with UCSD to circulate a “community survey” among its students. There are no known UC residents who received this survey, which the City says served as the basis for the plan update.

Representatives of Circulate San Diego attended almost every University Plan Update Subcommitteemeeting and hearing, along with an entourage of UCSD students who’d been coached on specific message points. The organization has had spokespersons at the ready to give media interviews to contradict UC residents’ concerns about the plan update.  When UC PEEPS organized several protests that were attended by hundreds of UC residents, a small group of students held counter-protests to exploit the media coverage.

YIMBY Democrats of San Diego, San Diego Chamber of Commerce, San Diego Housing Federation, the San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing, and other special interest groups also have influenced the UC Plan Update process. All have had their representatives present at meetings and hearings to push for high-density housing in UC.  They infiltrated social media to deflect UC residents’ conversations about the negative impacts and legitimate concerns about high-density housing, and argued why high-density housing will be a positive change.

Public city records that were obtained show that tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were spent to hire outside consultants to help mastermind the entire UC Plan Update process. They prepared elaborate presentations and slick plan drawings that were used to sell the public on how attractive UC might look with all the added growth and enhancements, despite there being no funding mechanism to execute them as depicted.  Records show that on-staff city employees were paid generously to manage these outside consultants.

A carefully orchestrated communications strategy was apparently put in place at the beginning, so special interest group representatives and city employees alike were conveying the same message points. Each time their rationale for adding enormous density to UC was proven untrue or inapplicable, they adopted a different message strategy. Currently they are using the line, “It will take many years for the development to happen, and only a small percentage of it will actually occur.  We just want to give developers plenty of options.”

So after spending more than two-and-a-half years of intense involvement and thousands of dollars on promotional and legal expenses, what could UC residents be left with?

If adopted by City Council on July 30th, we could be saddled with a poorly conceived and deceptively executed community plan update that could more than double the number of housing units and population, with no new roadways, parks & recreation centers, fire & safety coverage, schools, home ownership opportunities for our children and grandchildren, guarantees of affordable housing, nor solutions to how 12,000-plus people living in south UC could evacuate at once in the event of a disastrous wildfire using Governor Drive, which the plan proposes to reduce to two lanes to accommodate bike lanes.

Mostly though, UC residents will be left with a lingering distrust and anger towards a local government that failed to represent everyone’s best interests.

Bonnie Kutch is a resident of University City and founding member of UC Neighbors for Responsible Growth, a.k.a. UC PEEPS.