The following is a letter addressed to Elyse Lowe, Director of Development Services Department, City of San Diego, by Ezgi Kuyumcu, attorney for the group Protect Point Loma regarding the 4-story, 56-unit project at 1004 Rosecrans St.
Re: 1004 Rosecrans St Project (PRJ-1120716)
Dear City of San Diego Development Services Department:
This letter is submitted on behalf of Protect Point Loma regarding a proposed project located at 1004 Rosecrans St. (“Project”).
The Project scope consists of the development of a 4-story mixed-use residential building with 56 residential units, a 1770 square foot commercial suite, and 45 parking
spaces in a basement parking garage (PRJ-1120716).
The Project proposes utilizing incentives under the Complete Communities Housing Solutions Program (“CCHS”). However, the Project site is not eligible for CCHS. In addition, even if the Project site was eligible, as proposed, the Project violates the relevant provisions of the Municipal Code. The City’s review of the Project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code permitting requirements and the City failed to provide the necessary public involvement in the decision-making processes.
I. The Project Is Not Eligible for CCHS
A. The Project Is Inconsistent with the Complete Communities Housing Solutions Regulations
The Project is not eligible for the application of Complete Communities Housing Solutions Regulations as the requirements under San Diego Municipal Code §143.1002
are not met. Municipal Code §143.1002(a) provides: “the regulations in this Division shall apply to any development within a Sustainable Development Area where any
portion of the premises contains zoning that is commercial, residential, or mixed-use ….” SDMC §143.1002(a). The zoning records indicate that the Project site is zoned CC-4-2, located within a Sustainable Development Area (“SDA”) and in Mobility Zone 2.
However, there is no legal basis in the Municipal Code for the determination that this parcel is “located in a Sustainable Development Area,” as required by §143.1002(a).
The Mobility Choice Regulations provide: “Mobility Zone 2 means any premises located either partially or entirely in a Sustainable Development Area.” SDMC
§143.1103(a)(2). And as defined by the Municipal Code:
Sustainable Development Area means the area within a defined walking distance along a pedestrian path of travel from a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned major transit stop is included in a transportation improvement program or applicable regional transportation plan, as follows:
(a) Within Mobility Zones 1 and 3, as defined in Section 143.1103, the defined walking distance is 1.0 mile.
(b) Within Mobility Zone 4, as defined in Section 143.1103, the defined walking distance is .75 mile.
(c) For parcels located in Mobility Zone 4, in an area identified as a High or Highest Resource California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) Opportunity Area, the defined walking distance is 1.0 mile.
In addition, an adopted specific plan prepared in accordance with section 122.0107(a), shall be within the Sustainable Development Area if the Sustainable Development Area is within a portion of the adopted specific plan. SDMC §113.0103.
Notably, Mobility Zone 2 is entirely omitted in the SDA definition.
Prior to the adoption of the SDA definition, Mobility Zone 2 was defined as “any premises located either partially or entirely in a Transit Priority Area.” And “Transit
Priority Area” is defined as “the area defined in California Public Resources Code Section 21099, as may be amended, or an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned major transit stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program.” SDMC §113.0103 (emphasis added).
Therefore, before the reference in §143.1103(a)(2), which defines Mobility Zone 2, to “Transit Priority Area” was replaced by “Sustainable Development Area,” the Code provided for an identifiable area for parcels in the Mobility Zone 2 (i.e. “an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop…”). However, the current language of the Municipal Code provides no defined walking distance applicable to parcels in Mobility Zone 2, as it does for Mobility Zones 1,3 and 4.
Because the SDA definition requires a “defined walking distance,” and no such distance exists for Mobility Zone 2, the definition cannot be applied to parcels in
Mobility Zone 2. Therefore, there is no legal basis for this parcel to be identified as within SDA. As a result, the Project is not eligible for CCHS as it does not fulfill the
criteria in Municipal Code §143.1002(a).
B. The Project Is Inconsistent with the Purpose of CCHS Due to the Lack of Transit in the Area
The Project is not fit for the purpose of CCHS as the Project site lacks access to transit. The purpose of the incentives under CCHS is “to provide a balance of housing
opportunities within the City of San Diego with an emphasis on housing near transit.”
Municipal Code §143.1001(a) (emphasis added). However, an analysis of transit near the Project site shows that availability of such transit is very limited.
As depicted in the image below from the State Geoportal, there are three existing or planned transit stops within 0.5 miles, and four existing or planned transit stops within 1-mile radius of the Project site. These bus stops are located at:
1. Rosecrans St & Canon St (within 0.5 miles)
2. Rosecrans St & Shelter Island Drive (within 0.5 miles)
3. Scott St & Shelter Island Drive (within 0.5 miles)
4. Nimitz Blvd & Rosecrans St (0.5 – 1 mile)
According to the data provided by San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, the transit options available at these stops are limited and do not provide frequent service.
The only transit option available at the first three stops is Bus Route 28 that operates between Old Town Transit Center and Shelter Island via Rosecrans St. In addition to Route 28, Bus Route 923 that operates between Downtown and Point Loma, runs through the stop at Nimitz Blvd & Rosecrans St, which is around 0.7 miles from the Project Site or a 15-minute walk. The frequency of service on Route 28 is 20-30 minutes, and the frequency of service on Route 923 is 30-35 minutes. See Exhibit 1 – Bus Schedules and Routes.
In addition, none of these stops are “major transit stops.” “Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following:
(a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station.
(b) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service.
(c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”
Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3. None of these stops fit any of the listed criteria.
II. Even If the Complete Communities Housing Solutions Regulations Were Applicable, the Project Violates the Requirements
The City failed to apply the correct provisions applicable to this Project as the Project is not eligible for CCHS. However, even if the Project was eligible for CCHS, the
Project violates the requirements outlined in the CCHS Regulations.
The proposed height of the Project violates the applicable height limit as the Project site is in the Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone. Additionally, the City failed to
conduct the appropriate project review, as the Project requires a Site Development Permit subject to a Process Three discretionary project review. Therefore, the City violated the Municipal Code by processing this Project ministerially. The City shall conduct a discretionary project review, allowing for public input on the Project, and make the required findings for a Site Development Permit.
A. The Project Violates the Applicable Height Limit
The Project proposes a four story structure with a building height of 65 feet, which exceeds the height limitations imposed by the Municipal Code. While the CCHS
regulations provide certain incentives and waivers for maximum structure height, these are not applicable to the Project.
The Project site is located in Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone which limits the building height to a maximum of 30 feet. Municipal Code §143.1010(a) clearly states:
“Development located within … the Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone…, shall be limited to a maximum floor area ratio of 2.5, and to a maximum height of 30 feet, with
the exception of those areas located within the FAR Tier 1.” SDMC §143.1010(a). The Project is not in FAR Tier 1, therefore not eligible for an exception of the maximum
height of 30 feet.
In addition, Municipal Code §143.1010(d)(2) also confirms this requirement by stating that a project can obtain a waiver of maximum structure height “outside the
Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone and the Airport Land Use Compatibility Overlay Zone.” The Project site is located within both of those Overlay Zones.
This issue was also identified in the Preliminary Review Reports. The staff provided comments that the Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone supersedes all other height limits and that the Project cannot exceed 30 feet. However, the building plans show that the Project still proposes a structure that exceeds this requirement.
B. The Project Requires a Site Development Permit and Process Three Review
The City failed to comply with the review and permitting requirements applicable to the Project site. The Project site is in Peninsula Community Plan Area and “Type B”
Community Plan Implementation Overlay Zone (CPIOZ-B). Any development in Development Services Department
CPIOZ-B requires a Site Development Permit subject to Process Three review as identified in Table 132-14B and Table 143-03A. The City failed to adhere to the
discretionary project review procedures required for a Site Development Permit and failed to make the necessary findings.
While CCHS Regulations provide an incentive for a waiver from the Site Development Permit requirement in CPIOZ-B, the Project does not fit the criteria for such a waiver. Municipal Code §143.1010 outlines the incentives “in exchange for Sustainable Development Area Affordable Housing” and states that “an applicant proposing development that is consistent with criteria in Section 143.1002 shall be entitled to the [] incentives.” Municipal Code §143.1010. As explained above, the Project does not comply with Section 143.1002, as the Project site is erroneously designated as within the SDA.
Additionally, Municipal Code §143.1010(d)(2) provides: “The requirement to obtain a Site Development Permit in areas mapped as CPIOZ Type A or CPIOZ Type B,
if the development complies with the development standards or criteria in the applicable community plan. Compliance with the development standards or criteria in the applicable community plan does not include compliance with maximum permitted residential density and/or maximum structure height.” Municipal Code §143.1010(d)(2) (emphasis added). The Project does not comply with the criteria in the Peninsula Community Plan.
The Peninsula Community Planning Board (PCPB) submitted a letter on behalf of over 400 neighbors and business owners adjacent to the Project that identified several
ways in which the Project violates the community character and the Community Plan. See Exhibit 2. For instance, as proposed the Project exacerbates an existing traffic and safety problem in the area. These include concerns about fire evacuation due to the density the Project will bring to the already narrow streets surrounding the project. Moreover, the 56-unit Project that exceeds the height limit is not consistent with the properties in the neighborhood. The letter also discussed impacts on Jennings House adjacent to the Project, which is designated as a local historical resource. As proposed, the Project is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood and does not comply with the Peninsula Community Plan.
III. The City Failed to Provide Public Involvement
A significant concern with the City’s handling of this project is the lack of public involvement in the decision-making process. By incorrectly processing this project as a
project subject to CCHS and ministerial permitting, the City failed to comply with the Municipal Code and failed to provide adequate opportunity for public involvement
despite the concerns raised by the residents in the area and the PCPB.
The City has effectively eliminated the opportunity for public notice and comment that would normally accompany a development of this scale in the CPIOZ-B Overlay Zone. Process Three review provides essential opportunities for community input and public oversight, particularly for projects that substantially alter the character of
a neighborhood. The PCPB letter noted that the staff have been incorporative with the PCPB’s concerns and queries about the Project, despite the strong opposition from the community to the Project. Indeed, the City’s website notes that Community Planning Groups “provide formal mechanisms for community input in the decision-making processes. They give citizens with an opportunity for involvement in advising the City Council, the Planning Commission, and other decision makers on development projects, General or Community Plan amendments, rezonings and public facilities projects.”
However, the City ignored the PCPB, the community’s concerns and the requirements and policies of the Peninsula Community Plan.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Protect Point Loma respectfully urges the Development Services Department to reevaluate the assessment of the Project and provide opportunity for public input on the proposed Project by applying the appropriate provisions of the Municipal Code.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Ezgi Kuyumcu
Excellent. I can’t wait to see how the city responds to all of that.
Is this project in the Coastal Zone? If so they’ll have to apply the Coastal-certified versions of the code.
I only read through the first point so pardon my ignorance.