Resident Challenges City Over Fairmount Fire Station’s Cost and Environmental Impact

Attorney John Stump courtesy of 619at3leaf.com

by San Diego Monitor News Staff

A local resident and long-time community advocate has raised sweeping concerns about the City of San Diego’s proposed Fairmount Avenue Fire Station, calling it “an environmentally hazardous and fiscally reckless project” that ignores viable alternatives and threatens sensitive ecological and community areas.

In an 87-page public submission to the City’s Engineering and Capital Projects Department, John Stump, a resident of City Heights and representative of both Council Districts 4 and 9, detailed alleged flaws in the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). His letter, dated October 26, 2025, questions the project’s relocation, design, and cost, urging the city to reconsider building the facility at its originally planned Home Avenue site rather than on a steep hillside near Chollas Creek — an area designated as an environmentally sensitive reserve.

Stump’s critique argues that city staff and consultants failed to evaluate the full scope of potential environmental, fiscal, and social impacts of the new location. The proposed Fairmount site borders the impaired Chollas Creek watershed, a region prone to flooding and critical to wildlife and biodiversity. He warns that runoff from the station, particularly from fire engine washing facilities, could send pollutants directly into the creek, endangering water quality and undermining the city’s climate and environmental goals. “The essential nature of the project is to grade a hillside above an impaired waterway,” Stump wrote, noting risks of erosion, compaction, and habitat loss.

The proposed four-story facility would include a 15-stall parking lot, 10 private bunk rooms, an exercise room, and a large kitchen. Stump criticized the design as resembling “a luxury rural retreat rather than a functional fire station,” and questioned why parking and building amenities far exceed what’s necessary for operational efficiency.

The project, estimated at $28 million, was initially approved under the title “Home Avenue Fire Station” but was later moved to the Fairmount Avenue site. The City purchased the property for $328,812 in 2017, representing the acquisition as exempt from CEQA review because it would have “no significant effect on the environment.” Stump accuses the City of a “bait and switch,” relocating the project without transparent cost-benefit or service-time analysis. He claims that the Fairmount site is “potentially the most expensive fire station in the history of the City of San Diego,” and argues that its design and location divert funds from other urgent needs in historically underserved Districts 4 and 9.

In his filing, Stump emphasizes that the Webster neighborhood, adjacent to the proposed site, could be disproportionately affected by construction noise, traffic, and ecological disruption. He further argues that the City’s approach contradicts its 2030 Climate Action Plan and equity commitments, by concentrating costly infrastructure in areas already burdened by environmental challenges. Citing previous broken promises around similar projects — including the Mid-City Police Station — Stump urged city officials to avoid “empty inducements” of community access or ancillary services that often disappear post-approval. Stump’s submission also includes an extensive California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) “Alternatives” guide, calling on the City to thoroughly analyze less damaging and less expensive options, including the original Home Avenue commercial location. “The public deserves to see a side-by-side cost comparison of all possible sites,” he wrote, insisting that any new review include factors such as service response times, traffic patterns, and environmental feasibility. He argues that a smaller, all-electric, and climate-resilient station could achieve the same safety outcomes at a fraction of the cost.

During a June 2024 press event near the proposed location, residents warned that the project’s design could increase flood risk in nearby neighborhoods while damaging riparian habitats vital to recreation and wildlife. The City’s Environmental Review Department has yet to issue a formal response to the October 2025 comments per Stump, but the public review period for the Draft EIR remains open. For now, Stump says his aim is simple: “Make this project safer, cheaper, and better for the people it’s supposed to serve — not a vanity project carved into a hillside.” The San Diego Monitor News reached out to San Diego City Councilmember Henry Foster's office for comment on this story but did not receive a statement prior to this story running.