By Donna Frye
On Tuesday, January 13, the city council will vote for a second time on the College Area Community Plan Update (Item 64) and the Clairemont Community Plan Update (Item 65) and associated rezoning actions for both. They items are on the consent agenda so unless a city councilmember asks for them to be pulled for discussion, there won’t be any further council discussion on either item because they are “considered to be routine and the environmental documents have been considered.”
The public, however, may provide comment on any item on the agenda, including the consent agenda.
The council previously heard both plan updates on December 16, 2025 and a council majority approved them despite community concerns about the environmental impacts from the increased density and intensity. Councilmember Campillo voted against approving the College Area Community Plan Update in support of the community concerns and Council President LaCava voted against the Clairemont Community Plan Update because he believed it was a missed opportunity to provide even more density.
The College Area Community Planning Board even proposed their own plan called the “7 Visions Plan” but that was never considered as part of any meaningful environmental analysis.
The city decided to “streamline” the process which precluded any analysis of community-specific mitigation measures for Clairemont or the College Area and there were no alternatives considered such as the 7 Visions Plan. Instead, the city issued an addendum to a 2024 environmental impact report for the General Plan “refresh”. By doing so, the public was never given an opportunity to comment on an environmental impact report specific to either community plan update because one was never done.
Some of the many impacts identified as being “significant, unavoidable and unmitigated but acceptable” in the 2024 environmental report include air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, public services such as fire protection, police protection and services (including police response times), schools and libraries and deterioration of parks and recreational facilities.
But the city says that, “No changes in circumstances have occurred, and no new information of substantial importance has manifested, which would result in new significant or substantially increased adverse impacts as a result of the project.”
Does anyone really believe that nothing has changed in the past few years? Of course not.
For example, state legislation has overridden our local land use laws, limited or eliminated public participation and reduced or eliminated environmental review. All these changes impact our communities and allow development to be significantly bigger, denser and more intense, but not necessarily better.
How could the city or city council know two years before it happened what negative impacts the new state laws would create and make significantly worse? They couldn’t and it’s why an environmental impact report is required; the significant impacts must be adequately analyzed.
We have a right to know about the significant impacts from new development projects that exceed 20 stories and provide less than adequate parking. We have a right to know about the 95-foot plus projects that are approved ministerially or the ones that are allowed to pay reduced development fees for the impacts they cause. How does the city offset the financial impacts created by the new development? Where is that analysis?
It is only a matter of time until the next development project comes forward in the College Area or Clairemont that is so dense and so intense that even the elected officials will be asking, “How could this happen?”
Tell them it’s because of the rezoning they approved with the community plan updates making it easier to build over 200 feet high. Tell them it’s because they ignored our requests to provide an adequate environmental review that would have allowed public participation and could have mitigated some of the significant impacts. Tell them it’s because they did not listen and supported adopting an addendum to an outdated environmental analysis that precluded public input.
Despite being a bit less optimistic than usual, I still think it’s at least worth trying to get the city council to continue Items 64 and 65 until such time as an adequate environmental analysis can be completed. Stranger things have happened.
Plus, it’s a reasonable request and both the College Area and Clairemont communities deserve that especially since it could be another 30 years until we see the next community plan updates.
Please submit your comments for the January 13 meeting. Request a continuance for the College Area Community Plan Update (Item 64) and the Clairemont Community Plan Update (Item 65) using the webform
Additionally, you can call or email the councilmembers directly.
CD1 619-236-6611 joelacava@sandiego.gov
CD2 619-236-6622 jennifercampbell@sandiego.gov
CD3 619-236-6633 stephenwhitburn@sandiego.gov
CD4 619-236-6644 henryfoster@sandiego.gov
CD5 619-236-6655 marnivonwilpert@sandiego.gov
CD6 619-236-6616 kentlee@sandiego.gov
CD7 619-236-6677 raulcampillo@sandiego.gov
CD8 619-236-6688 vivianmoreno@sandiego.gov
CD9 619-236-6699 seanelorivera@sandiego.gov
These aren’t Community Plan Updates. These are authoritarian politicians hijacking the process, at State and Local levels. The work of generations being laid to waste.
Pretty sure environmental impacts could be avoided by not doing whatever it is that is going to impact the communities. Ie: avoidable.