I never followed up on a comment that you made to me during the 2007 Uptown historic survey…
You said your opinion was that Uptown, and Hillcrest in particular, were a perfect location for smart growth development projects. That view concerns me. I order to have widespread new development, it would be necessary to have widespread demolition of current buildings. In my view, many current buildings are part of our community character, even when they don’t qualify for historic status. the State Historic Preservation Officer said it well: Most redevelopment should be done on vacant land. In this context, the Sears parking lot was an appropriate place for redevelopment, but the many blocks of one-to-three story buildings in Mission Hills, Hillcrest, Bankers Hill and University Heights are not.
I’m sure you are aware of the dangers of excessive zoning entitlements. The Uptown community experienced a calamitous change in its community plan and zoning in 1988-89. Large areas of Uptown were designated with high and very high density categories. This provided a big incentive to tear down what’s there. The market conditions were not conducive for Uptown projects during the next 20 years, however, and developers focused on downtown and other communities. This changed in 2005-2007 with the proposals for Paseo de Mission Hills and 301 University.
In the last two years, these two projects were scaled back and cancelled, and the Uptown Interim Height Ordinance was adopted. These three events have helped to keep a lid on inappropriate development for the present. For the longer term,maintaining community character in Uptown will depend on the residents creating a carefully thought out community plan update. The update is expected to take place in the next few years. I live in Mission Hills and work in Hillcrest. I believe that I have a good understanding of what my neighbors value. Even if we identify certain blocks which don’t have significant buildings worth preserving, we are skeptical of any new project which would increase the current density. We are mindful that new development seldom comes with the infrastructure and public facilities needed to serve the new residents and new workers. For example, Uptown is short 90% of the needed park acres, based on a minimal standard of 2.8 acres per 1,000 residents. For transportation, we have only a few major arterial and collector streets, most of which are already congested. I hope that you will keep these limitations in mind before giving your support to redevelopment of Uptown, and our neighboring communities of North Park and Golden Hill.
Tom Mullaney, Friends of San Diego, Inc
