Measure “C” — which is on the November 2022 ballot for San Diego County — would eliminate the 30-foot height limit throughout the entire Midway District planning area, a total of 1,324 acres. If passed, the measure would not just apply to the Sports Arena area. There’s been some confusion about this (even here we admit).
The Midway area, officially called the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Plan Area, in its entirety will be immediately impacted if the measure is approved by city voters.
From the City Attorney’s office:
The approximate boundaries of the Community Plan area are Interstate 8 on the north, the San Diego International Airport on the south, Interstate 5 on the east, and Lytton Drive on the west. The Community Plan area includes the land surrounding Midway Drive and Sports Arena Boulevard, including the Pechanga Sports Arena.
On August 12, 2022, the City Attorney’s office submitted to the City Council a memorandum of it’s summary and “impartial analysis” for the ballot measure that would exclude the Midway from the 30-foot height limit. The City Council had directed the City Attorney to prepare the materials for the ballot measure.
Here’s part of the memo:
BALLOT TITLE
Amending the San Diego Municipal Code to Exclude the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Plan Area from the 30-Foot Height Limit on Buildings in the Coastal Zone.
BALLOT SUMMARY
This measure would amend the San Diego Municipal Code (Municipal Code) to exclude the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Plan area (Community Plan area) from the existing 30-foot height limit on buildings.
This measure does not approve any specific development. Any proposed future development must comply with all governing laws at the time a development project application is submitted to the City of San Diego (City). Zoning laws in the Municipal Code would still regulate building height.
Analysis
If approved by a majority vote of qualified voters who vote on the measure, this measure would amend the Municipal Code to change the height limit in the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Plan area. The amendments would take effect after the City Council certifies the results of the election. The measure includes language making the measure ineffective if a court reverses the Superior Court Decision on the previous Measure E and there are no further appeals related to Measure E.
The amendment would allow buildings, or additions to buildings, that exceed the 30-foot height limit to be built in the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Plan area (Community Plan area). The Community Plan area contains approximately 1,324 acres of land surrounding Midway Drive and Sports Arena Boulevard, including the Pechanga Sports Arena.
Any proposed development within the portions of the Community Plan area subject to Coastal Commission jurisdiction under the California Coastal Act would continue to require Coastal Commission approval.
Here’s a larger map of the planning area:
Here’s a different map of the planning area:
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
Build baby build!
San Diegan approved this once before and likely will again.
Bring on a new era for midway!
Isn’t a big part of that area in a flood zone? A few years ago part of Midway Drive got slightly flooded when there was a king tide. Are dikes part of the plan?
According to FEMA it is designated as a minimal flood risk area
https://msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/mscprintb_gpserver/j2a693ef319ba4adab9539e9db6d438c7/scratch/FIRMETTE_1707fdab-9218-4e01-8b4b-8c62da2705ab.pdf.
I think these environmental kind of concerns about drought and flooding and whatever else are often kind of superficial and come off as excuses to not build more housing!
Here ya go Zack: From Washington Post today:
Human-driven climate change has set in motion massive ice losses in Greenland that couldn’t be halted even if the world stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, according to a study published Monday.
The findings in the journal Nature Climate Change project that it is now inevitable that 3.3 percent of the Greenland ice sheet will melt — equal to 110 trillion tons of ice, the researchers said. That will trigger nearly a foot of global sea-level rise. …
A one-foot rise in global sea levels would have severe consequences. If the sea level along the U.S. coasts rose by an average of 10 to 12 inches by 2050, a recent report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found, the most destructive floods would take place five times as often, and moderate floods would become 10 times as frequent.
So using this logic shouldn’t we vacate all of Mission Beach, Ocean Beach, and Pacific Beach?
They won’t be safe to live in if the sea levels rise so just clear them out
Or at least only allow development that takes sea-rise into account in key areas. Your sarcasm belies the reality.
BTW Zack, we don’t have a housing crisis, we have an affordable housing crisis.
Frank,
At this point there is a pretty clear consensus among economists and policy experts that there is indeed a housing crisis which is making the available stock unaffordable.
https://www.economist.com/special-report/2020/01/16/how-housing-became-the-worlds-biggest-asset-class
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/21/opinion/housing-density-cities.html?searchResultPosition=1
https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-home-prices-stay-flat-11554210002?mod=Searchresults_pos14&page=2
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/2022-03-25/california-attorney-general-bonta-encinitas-apartment-complex
The list goes on as well.
Buy hey, you’re entitled to your opinion Frank. The evidence suggests however that you are incorrect. How does supply and demand economics not apply to housing but apply to everything else?
Your articles make my argument. High prices of the available stock are making the housing crisis. Open up the San Diego U-T any Sunday and stare at all the new houses, the McMansions. There’s lots of houses out there, they’re just not affordable. And that’s the profit motive for you, Zack. Short-term vacation rentals have also drastically cut into the available stock.
We have a unit crisis not a housing crisis until we legislate/incentivize units to be used solely to house people.
As you know, there several units that which having trouble attracting new residents and are sitting over half empty, mostly in the Bankers Hill area and East Village. And please don’t be dishonest like others pretend you’re unaware of this.
I have no problem with dense housing, but the dense housing that goes in needs to be more affordable for the average resident and that’s just not happening, so the whole “more housing” and and of itself is not the end all be all solution. Also the environmental concerns are valid (water usage, climate change etc), so don’t pretend like you really believe those are being used as excuses to not build more housing.
Chris,
I’m not pretending anything. These are my sincerely held positions.
80% of our water is used by agriculture so I don’t buy the argument that housing more people is an issue when we should be getting central valley farmers to pay higher rates for water.
I’ve never heard of large numbers of units in San Diego sitting empty. What I am aware of is the fact that our vacancy rate is very low.
I’m really not sure why I bother on this website. I use empirical arguments and no one listens. Nimbys gonna Nimby I guess.
I hope a tall, multi family development goes up next to all your houses so you guys get what’s coming to ya. You can delay the inevitable but these city is changing (for the better IMO) and we’re not going to be dinky, beach shack San Diego anymore. Good! Been here my whole life and happy to see the city mature.
“I’ve never heard of large numbers of units in San Diego sitting empty. What I am aware of is the fact that our vacancy rate is very low.”
The word I used was “several” but yes you have heard of more than half empty units. There is no one who hasn’t.
The low vacancy rate doesn’t change that. Try again.
“I hope a tall, multi family development goes up next to all your houses so you guys get what’s coming to ya.”
As I stated, I’m perfectly ok with dense housing. But the fact is, that alone will not lower overall cost of housing. Not if everything going up is all “luxury”. You know that.
Perhaps you should consider not posting here any more, if you do, give more honest thoughts and opinions.
These are my sincerely held positions so imploring me to be honest is a waste of time since I am being honest!
No I had not heard of even “several” units being half-empty. Why are you insisting I have? Do you know what information I am privy to?
Finally, assuming that all of the new units are market rate, overproducing those kinds of units would lower the price of market rate units since there would be too many on the market. Again economics 101.
I am pro bike lane AND making cities less car dependent BTW and actually prefer dense living, so your crack about tall building going up next to me is laughable. I personally prefer it, but that won’t make the cost keeping a roof over my head cheaper.
I work with property managers and owners downtown at some of these high-rise condos and apartment buildings and they have had trouble reaching occupancy over the past 5 years. I suppose you’ll want to discount my direct conversations with these people.
I would normally call these luxury units given the amenities and furnishings, but it seems to be the norm across the board now… regardless of what they’re labelled, most San Diegans cannot afford them. Keep in mind families require at least 2-3 bedrooms. What we have is a glut of unaffordable dinky units with high rents, mortgages, and hoa fees that really only appeal to 30-something well-employed types without kids.
The main point of Frank’s article is that the vote is NOT about the Sports Arena complex – it is about 1,324 acres, which is a lot of high rise. What is the acreage of all of downtown? Nothing says it has to be residential. The city would like you to think it is about housing but it is not. It is the new downtown.
Correct as usual. Measure C is a real estate scheme worthy of Florida.
The most recent environmental report for the proposed Midway district change was issued on July 15, 2022 on:
https://www.sandiego.gov/ceqa/final
Not for the fainthearted, the response to public comments is provided by Harris & Associates:
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/final_seir.pdf
Well at least the ballot measure language is honest and factual.
Unlike pretty much all the new coverage and city propoganda released to date on the matter that has married this to the redevelopment of city property around sports arena and sold it as a housing initiative.
*news coverage