LA JOLLA – A Bird Rock ad hoc group has submitted a ballot proposal to the San Diego City Clerk’s office to correct what it calls a “53-year-old mapping error” that worsens the housing crisis.
The group, known as Respect Bird Rock, is advocating for an update to the 1972 Coastal Height Limit (Proposition D), arguing the core problem is not coastal protection but an arbitrary boundary that uses Interstate 5 as a “concrete red line” of exclusion.
Times of San Diego conducted a Q&A with Harry Bubbins, spokesperson for Respect Bird Rock and a former president of the La Jolla Community Planning Association, asking him to explain the rationale behind this proposed future ballot measure.
ToSD: What is Respect Bird Rock?
BUBBINS: Respect Bird Rock is a group of coastal San Diego residents advocating for clean beaches, safe streets, and welcoming new neighbors in high resource areas. respectbirdrock.org.
ToSD: What is the origin of this movement?
BUBBINS: The growing movement to reform San Diego’s 1972 Coastal Height Limit is a direct response to a city in crisis. This well-intentioned but outdated Watergate-era policy has become a major driver of our housing shortage, sprawl, and inequity.
ToSD: Tell us about this “mapping error” in your ballot proposal.
BUBBINS: The core problem is the “I-5 Divide,” an arbitrary boundary drawn miles from the actual coast. This concrete red line has created a tale of two cities. West of I-5, wealthy coastal neighborhoods have produced a minuscule number of homes, while communities east of the concrete border bear a disproportionate burden.
This system is so broken that it could have blocked the Rose Creek Village in Pacific Beach, a housing project for veterans located over two miles from the shore.
ToSD: How does this “mapping error” worsen the housing crisis?
BUBBINS: This was never about the coastline; it’s about a concrete red line. We fully support protecting our immediate coast. Using the I-5 highway as a housing border has been a five-decade mistake that fuels inequality and forces sprawl. It’s time to draw a line based on common sense.
ToSD: How would this proposed ballot initiative fix 1972’s arbitrary I-5 boundary?
BUBBINS: We are not proposing skyscrapers on the beach. We are advocating for a public process through the city Rules Committee — just like other proposals — to replace this rigid boundary with a smarter system that truly protects the immediate coastline, while allowing for sensible homes near transit and jobs miles from the water. This would generate crucial new tax revenue for infrastructure and affordable housing. The conversation for the opportunity is continuing.
We urge the City Council to continue this process and craft a balanced measure for a future ballot. Don’t let a 53-year-old arbitrary mistake from the Nixon era constrain our future. Let the people vote to build a more unified, sustainable, and affordable San Diego.
ToSD: What would be a more appropriate boundary demarcation?
BUBBINS: The recent city Rules Committee members had three choices: take no action, as they did, request more detailed information from its proponents, or advance it to the city attorney for drafting. We had hoped that council members who regularly champion housing in high-resource areas would have seized the opportunity to continue the conversation by asking us to return with a more detailed framework.
However, the ongoing legal uncertainty surrounding the Midway District — where court rulings have controversially overturned voter-approved redevelopment — has unfortunately complicated and muddied the political waters for any proposed changes to coastal land use, making forward movement at this precise moment more challenging.
