City Council Approves Community Plan Updates for the College Area — Slammed with 300% Pop. Increase — and Clairemont — Only a 50% Increase

On Tuesday, December 16, the San Diego City Council approved new updates to community plans of two long term neighborhoods– Clairemont and the College Area. The updates are considered blueprints for development changes over the next 30 years — and both project thousands of new residents to both of the neighborhoods by allowing mid-rise and high-rise housing in more places.

Although approved on the same day by votes of 7–1, the updates were treated differently. The College Area plan slams the community with a projected tripling of the current population to nearly 77,000. U-T reporter David Garrick calls the approach to College as “more aggressive…” Clairemont is projected with a 50% population increase.

Also, as Garrick reported:

The number of housing units in Clairemont would rise by 59%, from 33,300 to 52,800, while the number of units in the College Area would more than quadruple, from 8,200 to 34,000.

So, let’s lean into Garrick’s reporting of the Council hearing and the updates separately, starting first with the College Area.

The College Area blueprint includes some higher-density mixed-use development near current and planned transit corridors, such as bus routes along Montezuma Avenue and trolley stations at 70th Street and the SDSU Transit Center. Medium- and lower-density housing would be concentrated on residential streets farther from campus.

Yet, “Many residents from the College Area passionately opposed their new blueprint, contending the neighborhood lacks the infrastructure and amenities needed to support existing residents — let alone thousands of new ones….”

Reflecting this, the College Area does not currently have its own fire station and has to rely on three fire stations in surrounding neighborhoods. And “residents want to see more focus on fire safety in the immediate area, an issue that became more pressing after a fire late last year.”

After that fire, a coalition of residents organized to raise concerns about fire safety with the planned-for population boom. Robert Montana, chair of the College Area Community Planning Group stated:

“The last thing you want to do is increase density in an area that is going to put more people at risk. And the plan being proposed by the Planning Department does that. It puts future residents, young families and children at risk.”

Additionally, there is only one neighborhood park, the 1.6-acre Montezuma Park. “And neighbors have pursued a years-long effort to improve parking access to the College-Rolando Library.”

Some council members tried to assuage College Area residents by claiming density expectations are rarely reached and actual development takes many years. Still, residents questioned why the College Area was selected to take on such growth in housing and population. Danna Givot, vice chair of the anti-density group Neighbors For a Better San Diego, asked:

“Why is the College Area, the stepchild of San Diego, getting the bulk of the density in an area with huge infrastructure deficits?”

Garrick reported:

Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, whose district includes the College Area, acknowledged the area’s infrastructure deficits Tuesday and vowed to work with Mayor Todd Gloria to solve them. Elo-Rivera said it’s difficult to gain consensus on new growth blueprints.

“It is just so unlikely to have a full community agree on the specifics of any plan,” said Elo-Rivera, letting residents know he heard their calls to make the area safer and more prosperous.

It was the relative lack of resources in the College Area cited by Councilmember Raul Campillo as the reason he cast the lone “no” vote on that neighborhood’s new blueprint.

Council president Joe LaCava focused of the differences in how he perceived the two communities were being treated by city staff. He voted for the College Area plan but against the Clairemont plan, and questioned why the difference was so stark.

“What a contrast between those two plans,” said LaCava, as Garrick reported. LaCava criticized “city officials for rejecting a Planning Commission request to allow taller high-rises in parts of Clairemont. “I continue to think that there is a missed opportunity. We could have done better.”

In other words, LaCava was disappointed that Clairemont wasn’t slammed with huge population and housing increases like the College Area was.

He stressed that Clairemont has three new trolley stops, is close to multiple vibrant job centers and has been deemed a higher-resource neighborhood than the College Area by state officials. The city is required under a legal settlement it agreed to earlier this year to concentrate affordable housing in those higher-resource areas. …

LaCava said both Clairemont and the College Area could potentially expect even more growth than is included in the growth blueprints because of new state laws encouraging homebuilding in cities and a city initiative to allow more duplexes and townhomes in single-family areas.

But he also said he expects the College Area to “really struggle” to realize the density its new plan proposes….

Of infrastructure in the College Area, LaCava said he’s worried the city has started to approve new housing plans without fully considering the community needs that come with them. “I’m really concerned that our community plans’ updates are becoming housing plans and not fulfilling the original vision of how we’re going to develop a community,” LaCava said.

In contrast, reportedly, “most Clairemont residents who spoke expressed relative satisfaction with their new blueprint, limiting their complaints to more minor issues like the zoning of the city’s Rose Canyon Operations Yard along Morena Boulevard.”

Here’s Garrick’s report on the Clairemont update:

Of the last seven growth blueprints approved by San Diego, Clairemont would see the smallest percentage increase in potential new homes — and the College Area would see nearly the largest, according to city data. …

Councilmember Jennifer Campbell, whose district includes Clairemont, said the new growth blueprint there balances the city’s need for more housing with what she called “the uniqueness of Clairemont.”

Clairemont is the oldest and largest of San Diego’s suburban neighborhoods. Its new blueprint would transform its nine sprawling shopping plazas into densely built mixed-use villages with mid-rise housing above the shops. The area’s neighborhoods of single-family homes would remain mostly untouched.

That plan also includes a new fire station, new parks and a possible new trolley station at Jutland Drive and Morena Boulevard. It also shrinks vehicle lanes on Morena Boulevard and Genesee Avenue to make way for bicycle-only and bus-only lanes.

There are also some ambitious goals like aerial tramways over Interstate 5 to connect Clairemont to coastal areas, and a missing link hiking trail that would connect Marian Bear Park and Tecolote Park.

And the neighborhood’s 30-foot building height limit would be wiped out in many areas to allow high-rise and mid-rise buildings that would range in height from 40 feet to 65 feet.

Much of the new housing would also be built along the new trolley line, which runs along Clairemont’s western edge near Morena Boulevard on its way from Old Town to UC San Diego.

City officials say the new growth blueprint would bring a much wider variety of housing to Clairemont, allowing people of all incomes to live in one of the city’s most appealing and prosperous neighborhoods.

Councilmember Kent Lee stressed to residents in both Clairemont and the College Area that the changes in their new blueprints could take years — and might never happen — because of hurdles the development community faces when pursuing housing projects.

“Despite the amount of housing capacity we continue to add, the actual production we see year to year still remains fairly low in comparison because of how difficult it is,” Lee said.

For more of the establishment’s view of the updated plans, we turn to Times of San Diego, where their staff quoted Mayor Gloria and more from Elo-Rivera:

“Updating community plans means listening to San Diegans, weighing different perspectives, and planning for the future our city needs,” said San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria. “The Clairemont and College Area plans reflect years of community input and set a clear path to build more homes, improve safety and mobility, and invest in public spaces that help neighbors stay connected. This is how we grow thoughtfully, create opportunity, and make sure San Diego works for everyone.”

The updated plans reflect priorities reportedly identified through years of extensive public engagement, including two draft plan releases, community workshops, and reviews by community planning groups, the Planning Commission, and the Land Use & Housing Committee.

In the College Area, the plan update supports a mix of options for new homes near San Diego State University and along key corridors, including College Avenue, Montezuma Road, and El Cajon Boulevard, and adds capacity for up to 17,750 homes.

It also plans for new public spaces, including a linear park along Montezuma Road, and streets designed with wide sidewalks, shade trees, and landscaping that promote pedestrian activity and support local businesses.

“This plan is about creating a future for working families and students. With the College Area Community Plan Update, we are saying loud and clear that the status quo—where housing is unaffordable, sidewalks are unsafe, and opportunities feel out of reach—is not acceptable,” said City Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera in a press release. “By planning for more homes near transit and San Diego State, expanding access to parks, and making our streets safer and more walkable, we are investing in a future where current residents see improved quality of life and working families and students can see a great future for themselves and the people they love.”

That’s a lot of talk — and it doesn’t explain to College Area residents — and his constituents — why the community appears to be singled out by city staff/ the Council / the mayor for such enormous population projections as 300% — without — and this is key — guaranteeing an infrastructure that can meet the needs of all those residents.