Council approves Rose Creek Village loan amid heated debate over coastal height limits

The City Council on July 30 approved a $4 million community-development loan for Rose Creek Village, a proposed 59-unit, 100% affordable studio apartment building in Pacific Beach that includes 18 permanent supportive housing units for veterans and other people experiencing homelessness.

Councilmember Rotem LaCava moved to reject using city funds on the project, saying the developer had misled the neighborhood by showing a lower-height design to the Pacific Beach planning group and then pursuing state density-bonus incentives to exceed the voter-approved 30-foot coastal height limit. LaCava said staff and the public were presented a “bait-and-switch” and argued taxpayer dollars should not be awarded to developments that bypass the voters’ intent. His motion failed 2–6.

City staff and project backers, including San Diego Community Housing Corporation and National Community Renaissance, said the proposal complies with state density bonus law and a Housing and Community Development opinion (later codified in state statute) that permits certain incentives to exceed local development standards for qualifying, 100% affordable projects. Developer representatives and housing advocates said the site is in a highest-resource, transit-priority area and that the proposal would create much-needed affordable homes close to transit and services.

Supporters noted the project’s financing stack, 55-year affordability covenants, rooftop solar and on‑site services, and argued the loan is critical to closing the project’s funding gap. Opponents raised concerns about process and community outreach, proximity to Rose Creek and flood risk, traffic and parking, and the precedent of allowing projects to exceed a voter-approved height limit via state incentives.

After further debate the council approved the staff recommendation to fund the project, 6–2. Councilmembers who voted for the loan said the matter before them was a financing decision to leverage state and federal resources to build guaranteed affordable homes; those opposed said the council should instead direct funds to other projects that better reflected local process and community input.

The Housing Authority later approved a related preliminary $2 million residual-estate loan for the same development in a separate vote. Developers said they have secured other pieces of the funding stack, have submitted a tax‑credit application, and—if additional loans are approved—could break ground in early 2025.