Ground-breaking begins for controversial Rose Creek Village
Shovels overturned some dirt in eastern Pacific Beach. It was the ground-breaking for a controversial 5-story apartment building that will reverberate throughout San Diego’s coastal zones, called the Rose Creek Village at 2662 Garnet Avenue.
It’s controversial because it’s the first development allowed to breach the sacrosanct 30-foot height limit in the coastal zone — and the City and County of San Diego along with the State of California have all conspired to allow this to happen. And all these levels of government are doing this for the grandiose purpose that the building once completed will offer 60 homes earmarked for seniors, families, and individuals earning between 30% and 60% of the area’s median income, along with the dedication of 18 units specifically for homeless veterans.
Now who wouldn’t allow this? Who would oppose this worthy project?
Our simple answer: the tens of thousands of San Diego voters who approved the 30-foot height limit for the coastal zones in 1972.
At one point, about a year ago, San Diego City Councilmember Joe LaCava, who represents the Pacific Beach community, sought to kill the project. In late July 2024, he accused the developers for being initially dishonest with community members about the project’s planned height. Plus, he underscored, that taxpayer funds should not be used to override the will of voters, he said. (See article by Jennifer van Grove in San Diego Union-Tribune on August 1, 2024.)
But, in the end, council members voted 6-2 to loan $4 million to San Diego Community Housing Corporation and National Community Renaissance of California (National CORE) to help fund their Rose Creek Village project. Then, Council members, acting separately as the city’s Housing Authority, voted 6-2 to approve a $2 million project loan from the San Diego Housing Commission.
As van Grove reported:
The actions complete the Rose Creek project’s financing puzzle. They make possible a five-story, roughly 60-foot-tall building on a 0.4-acre lot, where 59 of the 60 units will be deed restricted for very low-income and extremely low-income and families. The project includes 18 units for homeless veterans, a community room, nine parking spaces and private offices for supportive services.
With the loan approvals, the developers expect to start construction in February and open the height-limit-busting project by the end of 2026.
She also explained:
San Diego’s coastal zone, officially referred to as the Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone, was established by a 1972 voter initiative, Proposition D, and prevents buildings over 30 feet west of Interstate 5. The local law includes carve-outs for downtown, National City and parts of Mission Bay. …The local coastal law is distinct from the California Coastal Act of 1976, which protects at the state-level land up and down the coast of California.
A few blocks west of Interstate 5, the Rose Creek Village project along Garnet falls within the city’s coastal zone but outside the state’s more narrow boundaries.
In November 2021, the developers presented an early version of their affordable housing project to the community planning group. At the time, they left out specifics around the proposed building height. Shortly thereafter, the development team sought clearance from California’s Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD, to breach the lot’s 30-foot height restriction.
In June 2022, the Rose Creek project received the all-clear from HCD. The agency said the local, voter-enacted limitation is void because it conflicts with State Density Bonus Law. The state law, established in 1979, exists as an incentive for developers to build on-site affordable units, and it requires cities to grant waivers and incentives for projects with units deed-restricted for low-income households.
The state Legislature preempts local initiatives, HCD said in its letter.
Community members pressed the council not to sidestep the local ordinance.
Marcella Bothwell, chair of the Pacific Beach Community Planning Group, told the council:
“Ted and John (Seymour with National CORE) think the citizens initiative or a vote of the people doesn’t apply to them because they’re doing a good thing. Council members, we have process for a reason. If we don’t follow process, we disenfranchise the people and promote division and unnecessary anger. I implore you to do the right thing and … get a new vote of the people regarding the breaking of the 30-foot height limit.”
The developers told the council that without the loans from the public agencies, the project is infeasible.
Van Grove:
LaCava tried to block the project with a failed motion to reject the city’s loan. He characterized the project as a “bait and switch” because he said community members were initially led to believe the project would be three stories.
“I cannot and will not support using taxpayer dollars to fund projects that are dishonest with the communities, that are dishonest with public agencies and projects that bypass voter-adopted ballot measures,” he said. …
Councilmember Raul Campillo sided with LaCava, but the remaining council members voted to approve both the city and Housing Commission loans.
And then Council President Sean Elo-Rivera was right there helping to lead the charge against the citizens’ initiative. He too was swayed by the “worthiness” of the project, blinding him to helping overturn the will of the people.
Van Grove ended her report with this bitter pill:
Although Rose Creek Village appears to be the first project to lean on the state’s authority to tower over the local coastal zone restriction, it likely won’t be the last. Last year, the State Density Bonus Law was updated to clarify that it supersedes local voter initiatives.
As usual, SDUT leaves out the fact that Ted Miyahara of SD Community Housing is an appointed member of the city Planning Commission. Nonprofit Salary: $350,000/yr.
Thanks for adding that important info, Steph. Raul Campillo also called out Miahsrs for misleading and stonewalling the community planning group.
I completely understand the Rag’s position on the coastal height limit but I think perhaps the framing of this article seems contradictory given the Rag’s stated support of affordable housing. It would therefore be good if the Rag could clarify the following:
1. Should exceptions to the height limit be made provided that the structures consist entirely or predominantly of affordable housing?
2. If no exceptions should be made under current circumstances, should the there be a push to revisit the height limit to create exceptions?
3. If so, what should those exceptions be?
4. If not, then where and how should affordable housing be built within the coastal height limit zones?
If I am interpreting this article correctly, it seems that the Rag’s position is against affordable housing that also exceeds the height limit. So, is the height limit so sacred that no affordable housing should be exempted? This seems like an important position to clarify for us readers!
Why can’t we have affordable housing under the height limit? We can and have. Within the last several years, both an apartment building in OB and a former hotel in the Midway have been converted to affordable housing — and especially for former homeless people.
Why do we have to break the 30-ft ht limit? Well, it’s called profits. Builders won’t build unless they can be guaranteed a profit.
It was a citizens’ initiative — and it passed overwhelmingly from all parts of San Diego. A law was established (and you can bet your sweet hippie that it was challenged in court by the building industry) — so how can anyone be okay with breaking it? The city has carved out a handful of exceptions and it took a very close vote to break it in the Midway area to allow Midway Rising to be developed.
So, yeah, the 30 foot height limit is a law set by the people — and as such, it has a higher level of legitimacy, weight and prestige than something written by a biased state agency. We feel the voice and will of the people should remain supreme.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that we cannot have affordable housing under the height limit. It is true however that limiting affordable housing to 30ft will limit the number of units per project. Also, I am not sure the profits argument really applies here since it is pretty much universally true that no one engaged in business will invest money if they don’t expect a return on that investment. Unless we can figure out a way for developers to accept losing money on investments, I don’t think the profits and greed argument gets us very far.
Also, the Midway vote was only close the second time. The margin of victory was much higher the first time around (I think it was about 15 or so points in favor). If I remember correctly, the Rag supported the efforts of SOA to challenge both Midway votes, which doesn’t seem consistent with your claim that “We feel the voice and will of the people should remain supreme”.
Finally, the laws allowing affordable housing to preempt local height and density restrictions are not written by state agencies. They are written by the legislature, which the people elect, and interpreted by California courts, which consist of judges, either appointed by the Governor, or themselves elected by the people.
I know that is not the same as a voter initiative, but the implication that a “biased” state agency wrote these laws isn’t right. No unelected technocrats did this……voters did (indirectly)!
I don’t mean to argue with you Frank but I do think healthy discussion over debatable claims is worth doing!
Regarding your comment on voter approval in 2020 of the first 30′ height limit exemption to enable the Midway Rising project, it passed 56.56%, not by your estimated 15%.
The second time, in 2022, voter approval had dropped to 51.14%, a drop of 5.42%, because more voters had come to understand the impacts that the inadequate EIR failed to address – largely the substantial increase in traffic in the area and extending to the Sports Arena Blvd./Rosecrans intersections and on into Old Town.
I suspect, because the Midway Rising issue has been receiving a lot more attention in the media, far more voters might reject the project if put on the ballot again.
Voters are, increasingly, understanding the underlying issue that the City of San Diego tried to put one over on its citizens by pretending that an EIR done for the Midway/Pacific Highway Community Plan, based on the 30′ height limit, would be adequate for a project immensely larger and more densely populated with residences.
The first (2020) measure to raise the height limit in the Midway/Pacific Highway Community Plan passed with a 6.56% majority, not by 15%. By 2022, that majority had dropped to 51.14%, a substantial difference of 5.42% less.
I believe that difference is because voters were beginning to understand that the city was trying to pretend, by failing to account for the massive impacts to traffic in the EIR (both times), that data in an EIR done for the community plan area based on the 30′ height limit, as adequate for a project that would be immensely larger and more densely populated. Clearly, the courts agree; I hope that the State Supreme Court will uphold the lower court rulings.
If the city wants to continue pushing for the Midway Rising project, there must be a new and honest EIR that addresses all of the deficiencies of the previous EIRs, including potential impacts for the Navy’s proposed projects, and provides for reasonable mitigations for all of tangible impacts such a dense project in that area will create.
As it stands, traffic congestion at the intersection of Sports Arena Blvd,. Rosecrans, Camino del Rio W. (to I-8 E) and the Rosecrans continuation into Old Town and Taylor St. is already a problem at certain times of the day. I haven’t reviewed either of the EIRs in detail but I question whether either took into account the Navy’s intention to build high-rise towers on their property adjacent to I-5, a project that will exacerbate congestion in that area even without Midway Rising.
Judy the margin of victory of the Measure E vote in 2020 was 13% (56.5% Yes to 43.4% No). Turnout was historically very high (620,000 total votes cast for Prop E) that year. Measure C in 2022, on the other hand saw much lower turnout with about 400,00 total votes cast and it still passed 51% Yes to 49% No.
Sure, it could be the case that as voters learned more they decided against it but the more probable explanation is that many of the voters who turned out in favor of Measure E in 2020 did not vote at all in 2022. If your argument is that the margin of victory shrank during a lower turnout election year then you are not standing on the strongest ground.
Finally, the City does not need to do an EIR for the NAVWAR site or other federally owned property because state environmental laws do not apply to them and the City does not own them.
If you have affordable housing under the height limit, that means less affordable housing. This is a horrifying perspective to oppose housing for the most vulnerable: homeless veterans.
The height limit is not sacrosanct. Our most vulnerable must take precedent. And it’s shocking to hear tis perpsective from a self-proclaim progressive news organization.
Okay Jed (or is it Ted, which is your other YIMBY troll name). Why is it either or, huh? Okay, so since when are our “most vulnerable” taking precedent anywhere? You’ve set up a false dualism. The height limit is the people’s law, so quit trying to pick it apart. Shocking, I say.
The proper procedure for approval (or rejection) of any project that exceeds the voter approved 30 ft height limit would be a vote of the people— a referendum— to made an exception for a specific project, or to remove the existing height limit for any and all buildings.
The state should not have the self-appointed authority to override a legitimate, voter approved restriction.
I understand your opinion on this, but California courts have upheld state preemption of local laws, including those passed by voter initiatives, when they undermine or contradict state laws regarding matters of “statewide concern”. See NRF Project Owner LLC v. City of Oceanside (2021). Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022), and AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Bonta (2024).
That doesn’t mean we can’t continue to fight for local control when appropriate, as it was in this case.
The city council had the option of denying a loan to the developers, and giving that money to another, equally worthy low-income housing project.
That’s what Raul Campillo argued for, and, in my opinion, what the council should have done.
The council’s debate, and Campillo’s questions and comments, on this issue were very informative. Anyone interested in the details can listen to the agenda item discussion on the City Clerk’s website, in the archived council meetings section.
This property is adjacent to the Rose Creek drainage and is part of an ancient Kumeyaay village that is very close to buried human remains. In the 1960s, the “Aztec Dining Room “was an elegant dining experience for people of Pacific Beach. In the 1970s, the former Aztec Dining Room became the infamous establishment “The Jail” a private club for exotic dancing. And for the paste three or four decades, it has been a liquor store that sold the second bottle of wine for 5 cents. Any of those uses are far more appropriate than a high rise apartment complex that exceeds the 30-foot coastal height limit. And now thanks to the developer-oriented State Legislature, we can no longer ask for geological studies on the exceedingly high potential for geological liquifaction during an earthquake on land adjacent to Rose Creek or the potential that bulldozing will expose human remains. I personally object to the proposed project on moral and environmental grounds.
What exactly is the morality of keeping a the parcel as a strip mall with a liquor store rather than affordable housing?
Even if it had been a Kumeeyay village, what good would keeping the aging strip mall there do that the affordable housing wouldn’t also do?
Baffling argument.
Hey, Frank! In a rare instance, i don’t think we’re on the same side on this one.
Here’s the view from the 5 looking that direction – https://maps.app.goo.gl/2vGvYb3GRn1qRs6dA
Here’s the location in question – https://maps.app.goo.gl/c7ewomGofxwTo58Q6
Take a peak. I don’t understand who is going to lose their view from this. You can’t see the Ocean from the 5 there. This area is a pass-thru hellscape of parking garages, fast-food, and gas stations.
It is my opinion that the 30-ft height limit could be revisited in a way that can maintain view corridors, while allowing for increased density and additional housing. 30-ft is an arbitrary number, a blunt instrument, and one in which many still lose their views up the hill in OB working within those confines. We can come up with a better way, that serves to protect view corridors better than “30-ft everywhere.”..while allowing more density.
The answer to your objection is: The decision in this case sets a precedent for all other similar height-limit approvals in the Coastal Zone, that is, Ocean Beach. This law does not address protected views. Goodbye Abbott St businesses, hello Miami Beach.
Good to hear from you, Blake — I miss those fun times when you were on the OB Planning Board. On this, however, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. The vote on the 30 ft ht limit was not just about views.
One thing no one is mentioning here – 9 parking spaces for 60 units. We can count on 40 cars in the nearby neighborhoods on both sides of Garnet. The height is bad enough and the parking (lack thereof) makes it even worse. And, don’t forget, “affordable housing” is now a developer industry. This isn’t philanthropy. The developer rep said they “could build 100′ if they wanted to”. The reason they stop at 5 stories is because over 5 stories and the building has to be steel construction. It’s all about the money – especially with “affordable” housing.
Hence the oxymoronic Planning Commission. Because of their lockstep devotion to the city council’s bonus ADU, Complete Communities, TPA, as the crow flies policies……we now have the potential for a 136 ADU farm one half mile from the 60 unit
Rose Creek Village that will have just 9 parking spots. On one of the most congested, nightmarish thoroughfares in all of San Diego. This isn’t “planning.” It’s just signing off on city and state laws that usurp all common sense.
Yes, cost effective building is critical to keeping housing affordable. Eliminating parking mandates is another proven way to reduce costs.
Edward affordable housing is snake oil in my opinion as it is not affordable housing but is government subsidized housing which, helps keep people oppressed.
Habitat for Humanity has a true model for affordable housing, that helps people become less dependent on handouts government or private.
Equating government handouts to snake oil that oppresses people is a rather conservative narrative. So i guess social security, medical, unemployment insurance are all government hand-outs, eh? What are real government handouts are the billions paid to American farmers whose soybeans were not bought by China because of the government-imposed tariffs. Another real government handout is the $20 Billion Trump gave to Argentina “because they’re hurting” he said or some such nonsense. Another government handout are the billions that the government gives out to subsidize the defense industries.