An ad hoc group has emerged in the University City area to oppose the City’s plans to allow higher-density housing in single-family sections of the community plan being updated in their neighborhood.

Help Save UC was formed with a core group of 17 volunteer residents. The group is lobbying against the City’s intent to substantially increase density in a portion of their community, which they consider an overreaction to state policies mandating the aggressive pursuit of more affordable housing.

Help Save UC claims the City is proposing to add 35,000 to 56,000 housing units to University City by 2050. Such a change, some insist, will negatively impact them, fundamentally changing the character of their existing neighborhood and further stressing already overburdened infrastructure.

“SANDAG projects a population growth of just 2.3% and housing growth needs of 2% that would require adding just 7,342 housing units by 2050,” said Bonnie Kutch, a UC resident, retired public relations professional, and Help Save UC spokesperson. “There are currently 27,000 housing units and they are proposing to add as many as 56,000 units, representing an increase of 210%, which is more than three houses to every existing one. We are dumbstruck by their attempt to add such an enormous amount of housing to one small area. They have not given us any data, or metrics, to support such a grand plan that would essentially decimate our single-family neighborhoods and create considerable traffic congestion.”

The City noted the UC Community Plan update is a work in progress.

“The focus of the UC Plan Update is to increase opportunities for homes near major light rail transit investments for all San Diegans, not just students,” said Tara Lewis, senior City spokesperson. “This is especially important given that increases in housing for students and faculty connected to UC San Diego do not alleviate the City’s state obligations to provide additional opportunities for homes. The best way to reduce the average vehicle miles traveled is to increase the number of available homes in areas where jobs and high-quality transit are located, which can also help reduce traffic congestion throughout the City.”

Added Lewis: “The UC Community Plan is a long-range plan that will guide community development and growth for the next 20 to 30 years. The number of new homes that could be planned is informed by a variety of factors, including housing demand and other economic studies, proximity to transit and access to infrastructure, and furtherance of adopted plans and policies such as the Climate Action Plan. The Planning Department will consider all relevant information to recommend a range in the capacity of new homes to be added to the community. It is important to note that added capacity in the plan does not equate to the number of new homes that will actually be constructed.”

Lewis said the City Planning Department will continue to discuss proposed/draft land use scenarios with the University Community Plan Update Subcommittee, and continue to receive feedback from all interested parties throughout the plan update process. “The University Community Plan Update Subcommittee may also choose to create and recommend an additional land use scenario,” she said. “All of this feedback will inform refinements to the plan as the process continues and will be presented to the City Council (later) for consideration.”

Some UC area residents contend that existing infrastructure can’t accommodate increases in population and that there there is no undeveloped land where new infrastructure can be added or expanded. “The City’s own grant application to fund this Plan Update process stated that only 10,000 to 30,000 housing units are needed in this area,” said Kutch. “The City has never explained why there is such a disconnect between the projected population growth and the City’s proposed density. There is plenty of opportunity to increase density in areas that don’t impact single-family residential directly, where they (the City) would have a better chance of creating dynamic, visually-pleasing home communities that have a greater appeal to young students and workers, without detrimentally impacting existing infrastructure and creating considerable construction pollution.”

Century 21 Award UC/LaJolla Realtor Linda Bernstein concurred with Kutch’s view. “As a residential Realtor and resident of University City, I’ve sold homes to many individuals and families during my 30-year career,” she said. “The enormous density the City is proposing has created a lot of uncertainty about the type of community my clients would be buying into. In the past, I’ve been able to ensure my buyers they will be moving to a friendly, low-crime, family-oriented neighborhood offering a highly desirable lifestyle. But now we don’t really know what living here will be like.”

Pointing out that medium-density townhomes are popular with families, the City noted this style of home is found in family-friendly areas south of Nobel Drive within the UC community.

“In all the recently adopted plan updates, existing commercial centers have been identified as prime places for the addition of new homes to help new residents live close to retail as well as schools, parks, and other neighborhood-serving infrastructure,” said Lewis adding, “Development regulations do not control the leasing of commercial centers. However, policies can be put in place to encourage the development of buildings that would continue to provide neighborhood-serving retail uses, which will continue to be considered throughout the plan update process.”

Added Lewis, “The San Diego Forward plan indicates the intersection of Governor Drive and Genesee Avenue will be within a half mile of a major transit stop and will be served by two major bus routes running 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. All areas that meet the current definition of a Transit Priority Area can be found on the TPA map.”

Lewis noted that “the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance requires that 10% of all new housing developments be deed-restricted affordable housing. The creation of new housing within the University Community Planning Area will directly lead to the creation of new affordable housing. In addition, there are regulations in place to protect naturally occurring affordable housing, which includes requirements to replace existing homes within a new development.”

Lewis also pointed out that the SANDAG baseline forecasts being used in the UC Community Plan Update “do not identify the total number of homes needed for a specific community. Rather, the forecast identifies the estimated population based on existing adopted community plans. Therefore, while this forecast is informative in determining the total projected growth based on the current plan in effect, it does not fully inform the needed capacity for new homes for the community, or the City as a whole. When any community plan is updated, SANDAG includes the new housing capacity in future updates to its forecast model to calculate when the housing could actually be built, which can be influenced by a variety of factors, such as state and regional economic indicators and demographics trends.”