By Danna Givot
The College Area community showed up in force on October 9 to support the 7 Visions Plan the community has worked on since 2016. But, despite the factual arguments raised by all presenters, six Planning Commissioners voted unanimously to support the City’s 2 nd Draft College Area Community Plan Update without recommending any amendments. Arguments regarding excessive density, lack of supportive infrastructure, fire safety concerns, inequity, and violation of affirmatively further fair housing goals fell on deaf ears.
People came from across San Diego (including from Encanto, Jamacha, Linda Vista, Clairemont, Kensington, Talmadge, Uptown, Pacific Beach, North Park, and
Scripps Ranch) to support the College Area and cede time to speakers opposing the City’s proposed 2nd Draft College Area Community Plan Update. Nate Wilson, an
SDSU student, even called in to oppose the City’s proposed plan.
Backing up the presentations opposing the City’s massive upzoning of the College Area were official letters from the College Area Community Planning Board, the College Area Community Council, the San Diego Community Planners Committee and the San Diego Parks and Recreation Board. The primary concerns raised by
all included the excessive upzoning versus other recent community plans that is unaccompanied by realistic commitments for supportive infrastructure, especially parks and fire protection.
The College Area is essentially a “park desert” with only one existing public 1.6 acre park that is only partially usable (part is a drainage swale). It has no playground or dog park. There is no recreation center in this community. The only public building is the library, which has only 28 dedicated parking spaces when it should have 80. (This was the only point the Commissioners were sympathetic to.)
The plan basically relies on developers/property owners to develop privately-owned mini parks as a condition of building on transit corridors (under a Community Enhancement Overlay Zone), but developers have told residents they don’t want that liability. In fact, one developer testified against these requirements at the hearing.
The College Area has no dedicated police or fire station, though the area was identified as needing its own fire station in 2010 and again in 2017. Fifteen years later, the community has no fire station site, and no funds designated for a fire station. After reviewing the City’s proposed 2nd Draft College Area Community Plan Update, the Fire Marshal wrote a letter (9/23/25) indicating the plan would require two fire stations if the 316% increase in dwelling units and 268% increase in population became reality. Presentations also detailed how 82% of the College Area is in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and includes six neighborhoods that have only one road by which to evacuate.
Additional information detailed how small the College Area is (1.8% of San Diego’s population, less than 1% of San Diego’s acreage), but how it has been responsible for 5.4% of San Diego’s building permits and almost 9% of its affordable housing permits in the last four years.
In fact, over 70% of the College Area building permits come from bonus programs that the City’s upzoning plans don’t account for (ADUs, Complete Communities
and the Affordable Home Density Program), which would further increase the 26,000 housing units the plan wants to add to our existing 8,200 homes.
Equally important, the College Area has three low resource areas, which is where most of this new housing is planned to be built. Other planning areas with recent
plan updates are primarily high and highest resource areas and they are only being asked to double their density. But the lower opportunity College Area is being
asked to quadruple its housing density. This violates the federal, state and City goals of affirmatively furthering fair housing by focusing growth in low resource
areas instead of in high and highest resource areas.
The College Area community is not suggesting that other communities should be asked to accept higher density in their plan updates. Instead, the community is
asking that it be treated fairly and not be expected to bear twice the density increases that other recent plan updates have asked of community planning areas.
Editor’s Note: Sincere thanks to the presenters who made compelling arguments against the City’s irresponsible draft update. Along with myself, they were: Robert
Montana, Chair of the College Area Community Planning Board; Julie Hamilton, Chair of the College Area Community Council; Jan Hintzman, President of Friends
of the College-Rolando Library; Michelle Racicot, member of Save the College Area; Karen Austin, Chair of the Alvarado Estates Fire Safe Council; Victoria
LaBruzzo, Chair of the Community Planners Committee; Marcella Bothwell, MD, Chair of San Diego’s Parks and Recreation Board; and Tom Mullaney, Chair of
Livable San Diego.
Danna Givot is the Vice Chair, Neighbors for a Better San Diego and and a resident of the College Area.
I found it interesting and troubling that Planning Board Commissioners did not thank community members for the research and data they presented.
Also, Elo Rivera who, is supposed to represent the College Area, was MIA. His lack of interest in what his constituents think and want is frustrating. With some effort and forethought the College area could be a more dynamic community but the City is content on turning things over to private developers and letting them decide what goes where with no meaningful design standards.
The City should rename its Planning Department the Up-Zoning Department.
Yeah, I thought it interesting that Elo-Rivera didn’t make a show; he could have simply praised “both sides” and given a brief two cents. It would not have been a conflict of interest. He’s the freaking city councilman for that district!!! Was he afraid of what kind of reaction the crowd would have given him? Geez, dude!
Commissioners effusively praise Planning staff for their work, but they don’t thank community presenters for theirs. Vice Chair Boomhower visibly seethes when community members speak. He has repeatedly expressed scorn for what he calls “the anti-housing crowd.”
Planning staff can be downright hostile. I sat behind a planner who exchanged texts with a colleague throughout Danna’s excellent presentation. Her laptop was open, and I could see her screen (I took pictures.) The texts heaped ridicule on Danna. Sample: When Danna noted other communities have smaller populations and more amenities than the College Area, this planner texted her colleague, “Let’s put a lot of density in Bay Park and tell them it was her [Danna’s] idea.”
Like so many other systemic problems at City Hall, the culture of contempt for the public can be laid directly at the feet of Todd Gloria, who doesn’t even pretend to care what communities think. The fish really does stink from the head.
In the opening sentence of this article (“The College Area community showed up in force on October 9 to support the 7 Visions Plan, shouldn’t it be correct to state that the community showed up in force to *oppose* the 7 Visions Plan?
The 7 Visions Plan was the community’s plan. It was the city-driven Plan Update that was opposed.
Thanks for the correction, Frank. Clearly, I misread the details.
I ‘m adding Serra Mesa’s name to the communities who supported the College area community. We care about our neighbors! As one of the Serra Mesa residents who attended the hearing and ceded time to the College area speakers, I could feel my blood pressure rising as I listened to the commissioners. Rather than showing compassion and demonstrating creative problem-solving for a community so deficient in recreational facilities and infrastructure, the community was basically told, in my opinion, to “Live With It”.
If excess housing follows the pattern I’ve noticed with commercial rentals, rents will not decrease; units will remain vacant. Building more units doesn’t guarantee that the real problem of providing affordable housing is solved.
I applaud all of you who are working so hard to make a difference, admire your fortitude, and appreciate your efforts!