By Bonnie Kutch / SD Union-Tribune Op-Ed / Jan. 21, 2025
San Diego so far has dodged a major disaster during the recent Santa Ana winds, but more events are just around the corner. With our vegetation bone-dry, and wildfires becoming more extreme and unpredictable, residents here have never been more vulnerable and justifiably terrified.
The devastating wildfires that have been ravaging Los Angeles tell us one thing for certain: Wildfires are far more deadly in dense urban areas where traffic grids are limited and evacuation is more difficult. This factor was also in play in the tragic 2023 Maui wildfires.
This should be enough to caution San Diego City officials that building in very high fire hazard severity zones is foolish and irresponsible. Adding more people to these areas means more cars on the road, potentially creating traffic gridlock and making it impossible for residents to get out of harm’s way.
San Diego is known for its rolling topography of canyons, most of which are now overgrown with dry vegetation. Flammable vegetation on steep canyon slopes burns faster upward, and many older neighborhoods sit at the top of these canyons.
In 2017, the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department created the Proactive Brush Management Program, a door-to-door assessment program where officials go door-to-door to houses along canyon rims to inspect the properties and see if they are in compliance with brush regulations or not. But the department is seriously behind, and private property wildland management code violations are not being enforced.
The recent Montezuma Fire that broke out last October in the Talmadge neighborhood rapidly burned 37 acres, prompted evacuations and caused damage to six homes. While still under investigation, it is believed to have started near one of San Diego’s many homeless encampments.
The horrific L.A. wildfires have reignited fears of a larger disaster unfolding here in San Diego in the coming days, months or years. Residents of the single-family neighborhoods in south University City feel particularly vulnerable, since they are surrounded on all sides by Rose and San Clemente canyons and unmaintained open space.
University City recently went through a community plan update, which potentially would add 30,500 housing units to its existing 27,000 to accommodate another 80,000 residents within its small, 7.35-square-mile footprint.
The city has upzoned both shopping centers in south University City, as well as other commercial properties along Governor Drive to accommodate high-density apartment buildings. It’s also pushing to reduce Governor Drive to one lane in each direction to provide bike lanes for the handful of bicyclists that would use them.
With Governor Drive being the only escape route, evacuating south University City in the event of a large wildfire could be catastrophic and possibly fatal for the roughly 10,000 residents who live there. Many are young families with small children and pets, and many others are older adults.
Within the entire University City community, Genesee Avenue is the one and only north-south arterial and, for the past two years, has been under construction as part of the Pure Water Project. A one-mile stretch of Genesee Avenue north of Governor Drive to Nobel Drive is reduced to one lane in each direction, and the street narrows to one lane in sections south of Governor Drive. Traffic has been almost complete gridlock in these locations, particularly during morning and evening commute hours.
Other streets in south University City are torn up for sewer and water system upgrades, restricting many of the shortcuts.
Where is the wisdom in concentrating more high-density apartment buildings and ADUs in University City and other very high fire hazard severity zones areas? More, where is the concern for the protection and safety of residents’ lives?
For San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria and the City Council to forge ahead with their high-density housing plans given the heightened wildfire threat is reprehensible.
The responsible and right things to do would be to: Place a moratorium on all new development, including ADUs, throughout San Diego until all roadways are analyzed and safe evacuation routes can be designated and ensured. Rescind the University Community Plan Update and other recent plan updates; and plan and design a new overall growth plan for San Diego that would spread new housing development across the city at all 62 trolley stops, rather than concentrating it all in University City, Uptown and other targeted communities.
It’s a fairly sure bet that San Diego will experience a sizable wildfire at some point. But city officials have no right to be gambling with our lives.
Bonnie Kutch is the founding member of UC Neighbors for Responsible Growth, aka UC PEEPS, and lives in University City.
An excellent statement of the situation, clear and right on target on all points put forth.
I have lived just down the road in Clairemont Mesa for 25 years and worked for most of those years in the UTC area, so I am quite familiar with the traffic patterns on Genesee.
This area has been a problem area for emergency responders even before the Purewater Project. There have been several attempts to extend Regents Rd due to slow emergency response times but none have come to fruition.
Thus I was shocked when I heard of the community plan update to possibly double the number of allowed housing units.
With no plan for access and evacuation, this seems criminally negligent as UC is clearly in an area that has significant fire risk and is already a well known area of significant traffic congestion.
Thank you, Robert. I believe there should be a moratorium on all housing development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within San Diego’s urban core, including Clairemont. It’s shocking to see the number of large Bonus ADUs that have been built in Clairemont, with no regard for canyons nor residents’ ability to evacuate. I sympathize with your needing to navigate Genesee Ave. all these years. Speaking for myself, it’s probably taken weeks off my life stuck in traffic just these past two-plus years and counting!
Is there anything that can be done, Bonnie ?
It seems obvious that the many city-wide problems of overpopulation are being driven by developers and investors. With their deep pockets and direct access to our government officials, how can a regular citizen even be heard ?
I vote, I have written letters (or emails) to our elected officials and from what I read there are lots of fellow residents who have done the same. Yet the City rolls onward, ignoring obvious problems. Gloria et alia won’t even acknowledge that there is a problem.
I certainly wish there was, Robert. I share your frustration. Our organization has been trying to get Gloria and the other city officials to listen to us for three years now through massive protests, petitions, letter-writing campaigns, attendance at all the hearings and making detailed slide presentations, one-on-one dialog in person and via Zoom meetings, media outreach — the list goes on. Gloria and the others have simply ignored us. The only ones that have their ear are the developers and other special interest groups who have contributed to Gloria’s reelection campaign. A good mayor would be looking out for the safety and welfare of his/her constituents during these Santa Ana wind events, calming people’s fears and providing solutions. So far, he’s been conspicuously absent, which doesn’t bring a lot of comfort.
Spot on Bonnie.
Thank you,
Pats
Thank you, Pat! Remarkably but not surprisingly, we haven’t seen Mayor Gloria on the scene of any of our recent wildfires, including the one today in Fashion Valley. I’ve personally only seen a post touting his state of the city address calling for more housing density.
Bonnie, your analysis is sharp, comprehensive, and scary as hell. We’ve known for a long time that Todd Gloria and the City Council will sacrifice neighborhood quality of life — more traffic, dirtier air, less green space — to benefit their developer donors. Now we know they will even put our lives at risk.
But they also are risking their own political careers (the one thing they care about). Mr. Mayor, look closely at what’s happening to Karen Bass in Los Angeles. You are one major brushfire away from the same humiliating takedown.
Thank you, Kate! You’re certainly right — they will. And as you pointed out, I’d be following what’s happening to Bass if I were Gloria. This would be a good time for him to step out in front of the people and be the real leader we need right now.
Another option would be to just manage the dry vegetation well to reduce the risk of fire. That way, neither the existing nor the (potentially larger number of) future residents are likely to be harmed by wildfire. But, it could be that your primary goal is to hinder the development of more housing units in this area, and it’s just timely to leverage fear of fire to try to bring more people to that cause. That would be unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising.
Raphael, the city’s brush management was painfully behind when the 2024 rains arrived. As you may know, many people were flooded out and lost their homes. They paid for this brush management over the years prior and likely still pay.
Why do you reckon the city government opted to wash its hands of this brush management responsibility? They are, in fact, public servants and the Flood Control team is tasked with this very mission.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/dpw/flood.html
Also browse this link.
https://www.sandiego.gov/stormwater/services/stormdrainmaint
Raphael: I absolutely agree that brush management is crucial, no matter what the situation or goal. The city is far behind on its Brush Management Program, and lacks adequate means of enforcing it. Much of the problem is that homeowners living on the edges of canyon rims own a portion of the wild land below them and are responsible for maintaining it, but the majority don’t. No matter what the reason is for having to evacuate — wildfire, earthquake, flood, gas leak — the multiple ADUs popping up all over the city create a hinderance to residents’ ability to evacuate quickly and safely because ADUs don’t require onsite parking, and parked cars create barriers both to residents and emergency vehicles.