By Rene Kaprielian
The fast-moving brush fire that swept through the canyon off Montezuma Road near San Diego State University on Oct. 31 reminds us how fast disaster can strike. It wasn’t just the fire, which came within 10 feet of homes on the canyon rim, but the chaos and hours-long traffic jams of residents trying to evacuate the area. If that fire had gotten further out of control and jumped to adjacent neighborhoods, people could have been trapped in their homes and cars and possibly died.
After this harrowing incident and the Los Angeles fires, it’s unconscionable that SDSU is planning to build 13-story towers on a cul-de-sac at the northwest corner of campus on a peninsula surrounded by canyons. In SDSU’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the “Evolve” project, the land is classified as a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.” Besides being in a severe fire zone, this massive project is out of scale for the area.
SDSU wants to demolish 13 buildings, most of which are two-story apartment buildings that house 702 students, and replace them with five 13-story and one nine-story tower that will house 5,170 students. A recently built apartment complex adjacent to this proposed project and an existing dorm together house another 1,000 students.
To put it in perspective, SDSU’s proposal would put more than one and a half times the population of the city of Del Mar in a two-block area surrounded by canyons, with only one way in and out on a two-lane residential street.
SDSU’s draft environmental impact report minimizes the risk of fire and does not address how to evacuate more than 6,000 students plus an additional 1,200 residents living in adjacent neighborhoods without clogging escape routes. It’s bad urban planning to expect existing residential streets and infrastructure to handle this many people on a daily basis, especially during a life-threatening emergency.
In 2017, SDSU tried to push through similar student housing density in Aztec Canyon, on the western boundary of campus. That proposal met stiff resistance from the community, state Sen. Toni Atkins and City Council District 9 representative Georgette Gomez due to environmental and fire concerns as well as insufficient infrastructure to support such massive density.
Besides being in a severe fire zone, SDSU’s proposed project begs the question, why did the university ask voters in 2018 to approve the Mission Valley Qualcomm site for redevelopment? Part of SDSU’s sales pitch to voters was it had limited space on its main campus and needed the stadium site to build student housing and classrooms.
SDSU is pushing a bait-and-switch when it comes to student housing and is placing students and the surrounding community at risk.
SDSU has managed to add the Qualcomm site to its real estate portfolio and is attempting to increase revenue by proposing dangerous housing density in a severe fire zone to create what by my calculations is a stream each academic year.
This is not the first time SDSU has squandered taxpayers’ and voters’ largesse. When San Diego’s Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) first planned the Green Line Trolley, SDSU’s station was located at College Avenue and Interstate 8, and required riders to walk up a steep hill to get to campus. SDSU lobbied MTS to spend millions more to tunnel underneath the university and locate the stop near the center of campus. In the 20 years since the opening of the Green Line, SDSU has placed or attempted to place much of its student housing at the western end of campus, nearly a mile away from the trolley station, even though there are numerous lots that need redevelopment adjacent to the station.
SDSU’s misuse of community generosity is one reason San Diegans lose faith in their elected officials and local institutions.
San Diego city and state elected representatives must tell SDSU it should not build high-density housing in a severe fire zone. Student housing should instead be built on the Qualcomm site that SDSU claimed it desperately needed, or this project should be significantly scaled back to a safer size, in conjunction with the community, with more housing built near the campus trolley/transit station.
Kaprielian has a bachelor of arts degree in journalism from SDSU and has lived in the College Area since 1997.
Editordude: This article originally appeared as an Op-Ed in the SD Union-Tribune. The Rag reposts it at the author’s request.
Thank you for the awareness here. Several unresolved things come to mind. During the evacuation on Halloween, SDSU itself did not shut down until a shooting at a transit stop later that day. Why? Secondly, there is a student soccer field adjacent to a six story parking structure (PS12) just north of Viejas. Why is this not being utilized as a mega tower site closer to campus with pedestrian connectors and relocate the field to the end of 55th as a fire buffer? SDSU thinks the 4500+ students at the end of 55th would shelter in place should a fire break out. All the while the 300+ homes, in the fire area, to the west of SDSU (not counting mayor Toad’s ADU additions) , are bottle necked in an emergency, as demonstrated during the fire, trying to evacuate. Another layer in all this is the push to basically infill the neighborhoods and the main thoroughfares of El Cajon Blvd, Montezuma, and College Av. Limiting cars, more transit, bike lanes and pedestrian friendly zones through the city planning apparatus. Montezuma Rd itself bottle necks from two lanes down to one, to access the freeway, where it joins to Fairmount, in daily morning traffic jambs already despite having the room to cut in with a retaining wall and realign that segment to two lanes. But we can all thank Elo-Rivera for trash taxes instead of protecting and circumventing issues in his district.
And SDSU is looking to build a bridge over near Fenton Pkwy to connect to Camino del Rio N. and turn that over to the city. Why? They won’t take care of the community they reside in unless it serves their interests.
When residents asked SDSU for their evacuation plan, we were told there was none they could give us, as there were too many variables (time of day, number of people on campus, time of year, etc.). I noted to them that ONE variable will never change and that is the fact that the 2 communities landlocked to the west of SDSU have two roads out, one to the west dropping onto Motezuma Rd and one to the east through the SDSU campus. The one to the west was not accessible, as it was where the fire was, and the one to the east was a gridlock of cars unable to evacuate. SDSU PD had SIX officers on duty and they told us they were unable to deal with the mass evacuation. Thank God there was no wind that day and thank God multiple county fire agencies were able to respond. The day we were told of all this was the day of the Palisades Fire and we could have been in that same situation.
SDSU states in it’s EIR for the project that as a state university they are not subject to local fire department approval but San Diego Fire and Rescue will be responsible for providing emergency services when required.
In a commentary in the UT praising the project, SDSU says that “in the event of a fire or other emergency local and regional agencies have well-established protocols to manage response plans and any potential evacuations…and the university follows those orders closely.”
During the Montezuma fire SDSU was sending out text messages to students telling them that the university was open for business and to class while the San Diego Fire Department was issuing evacuation alerts for the area.
The opposite, of your point by SDSU apologists, floored me. As though these kids will exist and incubate in the SDSU bubble. Finding everything, with no mobility, except for public transit or ride share (today’s taxis). And then to double down on the walk able footprint being pushed by, a person from Oceanside and another from Santee. What is this university doing? Other than trying to suck every dollar from every angle.