Developer claims state laws allow projects to exceed local restrictions if they include low-income housing
by Dave Schwab / Times of San Diego / Oct. 23, 2025
The developers behind a plan to transform the area around Pechanga Arena into a dense, urban nightlife district say a court ruling that retained a 30-foot limit on building heights there won’t stop the project.
Four years ago, they weren’t so sure.
Midway Rising, the proposal to build a new sports arena and 4,000 homes — with half reserved for low-income residents — includes buildings up to 85 feet tall.
Accommodating those taller buildings was part of why the city in 2020 and again in 2022 asked voters to rescind the coastal height limit for the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Plan area, which includes the 48-acre project area.
But a citizens group opposing that measure, and the taller, denser buildings it would allow, scored a legal victory last week when an appellate court ruled the city failed to follow the California Environmental Quality Act by not adequately informing the public of the environmental effects of removing the height restrictions.
In response, both the developers and Mayor Todd Gloria said the decision would not stop the project. Gloria said he and the city attorney disagree with the ruling and will appeal it to the California Supreme Court.
“In addition to the appeal, city staff have identified multiple paths to keep the redevelopment of the city’s sports arena property moving forward,” he said in a statement. “Failure is simply not an option, and we will get this done.”
Jeff Meyer, a spokesman for Midway Rising, likewise said state laws that allow projects to exceed local development restrictions if they include low-income housing will allow the project to proceed.
“While unfortunate for San Diego, this ruling has little bearing on Midway Rising,” he wrote. “There are numerous state laws in place designed to advance affordable housing, and Midway Rising is one of the largest affordable housing projects in state history.”
It’s not a new idea. In 2022, state housing officials explicitly said that a low-income housing developer could exceed the coastal height limit for a Pacific Beach project, based on the state’s so-called density bonus law.
But in 2021, when the Midway Rising team outlined their project proposal while the city was deciding between competing bids, the developers specifically said that the success of the coastal height limit ballot initiative was a big deal.
As part of that process, the city asked what the biggest risk facing the project was.
“We believe the biggest challenge facing the Midway District is the outcome of the height initiative,” the developers wrote in the bid. “Our team is prepared to advise and assist in any way to create a successful resolution of the height limit, including legal, legislative, financial, and electoral solutions.”
Elsewhere in their bid, the developers said the proposal to build 4,000 units with half of them reserved for very low and low-income renters depended on a series of factors, including “legal validity of the increased height limit initiative.” That section said the project eventually would include as few as 30% of its units reserved for very low or low-income renters.
The city selected that proposal, then lost in court over a 2020 ballot measure rescinding the height limit. They responded by putting the measure back on the ballot in 2022 — after the state weighed in on using a density bonus to exceed the restriction. It also passed, before losing in court last week.
John McNab, president and chief executive officer of Save Our Access, the group that sued over the initiative, said at a press conference celebrating the ruling that the city’s argument in favor of Measure C was that approving it would result in a new sports arena, but “what they didn’t tell you is that they wanted to put 150,000 to 200,000 more people in this area.”
He argued that if the city wants to proceed with the project, it’ll need to do a new environmental impact report and offer a new ballot measure.
“They can’t go over 30 feet,” McNab said.
The mayor and his cohort developers have figured out a “work around”. Historically there have been HUNDREDS of so called “affordable”, AKA fair market value new construction apts. built. However they have only built the absolute minimum of low income or very low income units, thereby since that quota is far from being met, they have been given the full on green light to proceed, even when the quantity of fair market housing has been met. This developer will be able to build more fair market housing under the pretext of trying to meet the low income and very low income quotas. A shady bait and switch tactic seems to me.
Pats with all due respect I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. The work around is probably a series of state density bonus laws, as well as SB79 that was just signed in to law by the Governor.
We’ll see how it all shakes out but density bonus laws do require a certain percentage of the units to be affordable. The more affordable units the developer builds, the more market rates they also get to build. The Midway Rising developer has proposed 2,000 affordable units.
Interesting that the developers and others that funded the 2 flawed 30th foot height limit Measures are not claiming they don’t matter.
In reality, they will be pushing hard to have the 2022 Measure’s invalidation overturned.
However, if the 30 foot height limit truly doesn’t matter, then the court’s ruling would prioritize the low income housing that Gloria says he wants San Diego to build.
But Gloria’s fighting to overturn the courts ruling must mean he’s not sure about the impact of the ruling and/or in the pocket of market rate developers.
Paul I don’t follow what you’re saying.
The court’s ruling does not prioritoze affordable housing at all.
You can say Todd Gloria is in the pocket of market rate developers all you want. However, from the perspective of representative democracy, he is challenging a questionable court ruling that overturned the will of a majority of his constituents twice. As our elected chief executive (whether you like him or not) it would be puzzling if he did not represent the interests of his constituents who have voted twice to eliminate the height limit over Midway.
This whole boondoggle is turning into a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. Should we really have to pay for the city to conduct a million dollar EIR that will take months? Who will read it except lawyers and consultants? How is this in the taxpayer’s interest?
We have twice expressed our will to eliminate the height limit, and a small group of activists have decided to weaponize outdated environmental laws to invalidate the will of the people expressed through legitimate democratic means. That is a huge slap in the face to San Diegans.
But Zack, you’re not taking into account your own reckonings. Weren’t these votes attempting to overturn the “will of the majority” who voted for the original laws enacting height limits at SD’s coast?
Frank,
They were! We went through the same process by voting, just like Prop D voters did. If something like the height limit can be voted on and deemed legitimate by popular vote, why can’t modifying where that height limit applies also be voted on and deemed legitimate?
If voters elected Todd Gloria in 2020 but instead had elected Larry Turner in 2024, would that have been illegitimate?
Because those votes attempted to overturn the people’s will; Prop D won by a huge margin and from every corner of city of San Diego. Should we be able to vote on sections of the Bill of Rights some of us don’t like?
Frank,
The Bill of Rights are amendments to the US Constitution. They were not ever adopted via popular vote. There is also no federal ballot initiative process by which voters could vote on them.
However, Prop D was a ballot measure that San Diegans did approve of via popular vote. Both Measure E and C were also ballot measures that San Diegans also approved of via popular vote. So my question is why is Prop D so sacred it cannot be modified via the same exact mechanism that enabled it to become law? If you believe that Prop D was legitimate because it was an expression of the will of the people at the time, then why aren’t Measures E and C also legitimate expressions of the will of the people?
Frank you’ve got to be consistent about this stuff. If you think that ballot measures are legitimate than you can’t play favorites. Either Prop D and Measures E and C are all legitimate, or none of them are. Its the mechanism itself, the people expressing their will via popular vote, that confers legitimacy onto the ballot measures, not the objective of the ballot measure.
Zack, you really need to do some research into Prop D; find out how it even got on the ballot, in contrast to E and C.
It was a citizen’s initiative; proponents collected signatures to qualify it for a ballot measure. Measures E amd C were city-backed initiatives, placed on the ballot by the City. The process by which Prop D got on thr ballot is different but the way it became law is the same (popular vote).
I know all that. It is irrelevant to the question I asked you, which you have not yet answered.
What makes Prop D sacred that does not also apply to Measures E and C?
I’m saying in essence, that the courts overturning the 2 flawed Props on the lifting of the 30 ft height limit would not allow tall market rate housing west of I-5. This means developers may turn to low income housing to build over 30 feet near the coast. This is the type of building that Todd Gloria is pushing. If market rate developments under 30 feet don’t pencil out, then developers can build market rate housing east of the I-5 or low income housing west of I-5. One would hope such building would be in character with the community and not a developer jamming in tall dense developments, especially in Single Family Neighborhoods. I can assure you they will be fought for irresponsible developments like the Turquoise Tower and 56 unit monstrosity planned at Talbot and Rosecrans
Regarding the measures being passed, numerous Measures and Propositions have been overturned by courts including Prop 8 and Prop 209. They were passed more handily than the last redo on the 30 foot height limit.
The city has a bad record with poorly written Props that have been struck down. Additionally, the city just got shut down on trying to invalidate signatures to get a measure to on the ballot to potentially have La Jolla leave the city of San Diego.
The reality is “affordable” and “market value”, is the same monthly rent amount. The city uses the word “affordable”, to make people think it’s affordable to the majority, but they are not, and that’s why you see so many “for lease” signs on the buildings. If you look at the ratings the City has given the new construction, you’ll see “Affordable”, “Low income”, and “Very low” income. You won’t see market value. It’s a word game the City uses. The units are affordable, if you earn 110K and up. Not “affordable” for those who make 50K for example. They can’t qualify. Taken from an article “From the Mayor’s desk”. “These calculations are adjusted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and based on the guideline that affordable housing costs should not exceed 30% of a household’s gross annual income”. With the only industry SD has, being the tourism industry, most employees work in minimum wage, or slightly above, jobs where the new housing construction is going on. General minimum wage is $17.25 per hr., but some tourism jobs minimum wage is $25.00 per hr. If all minimum wage was $25.00 per hr., that equals $40K per yr. This is why I call it a word game/play on words. Affordable is not affordable to the majority of people. The mayor makes over $200K per yr., so it’s affordable to him. I found something that makes it very clear. Examples of income for “affordable” housing
Single Person: Up to $92,700 annually
Two-Person Household: Up to $105,950 annually
Three-Person Household: Up to $119,200 annually
Four-Person Household: Up to $132,400 annually (80% of the $119,500 AMI)
So the work around is telling people it’s affordable, but it’s not, to the majority of people, yet the developers have to rent the units out for enough money to make their permanent financing, loan payments.
The mayor doesn’t unilaterally set the rules. There are state guidelines as to what constitutes affordable and it is based on percentage of the area’s median income.
Your issue is with the legislature more so than the mayor
Zack, a couple of points you might have overlooked.
The original height limit vote was not coupled with a badly needed new sports arena or anything else enticing. Prop C & E were very much attached to the new sports arena. I’m fairly positive that the greater San Diego residents were persuaded by a grand new sports arena. The ironic thing is whenever there’s a sports arena event, the environment in the Midway area is grossly affected by the amount of traffic influx there is.
Also, I beg to differ with you regarding the mayor’s ability to make rules. It has been demonstrated that a previous “rule” of including the local community planning groups in the decision making about their respective communities. Mayor Gloria has made it perfectly clear he does not want input from the very community that the change is affecting. One has to wonder why he doesn’t want to hear from concerned citizens. There’s even talk about not letting the public attend the council meetings. Can you imagine??? A Public meeting without the public.
Shannon,
What does the new sports arena have to do with voters voting in favor of Measures E and C? Whether or not voters were enticed with a new sports arena has zero bearing on whether or not the measures were legitimate. Again a majority of voters city-wide voted to waive the 30 ft height limit in Midway. Essentially, unless there is something unconstitutional or illegal about the ballot measure, then voters’ rationale is irrelevant. So, again the voters spoke clearly in all three ballot measures and as a result all were legitimate.
Also, the changes to input from community planning groups was actually adopted by the City Council as an ordinance. CPGs were always advisory before that, but the ordinance clarified that, as well as adding in a bunch of other reforms (not going to go into the merits of it here but you get my point). I don’t mean to defend the Mayor, but the City Council is responsible for reforming CPGs!
Zack there is something even more unconstitutional in the cryptic way Jen Campbell’s City Council behind closed doors dictated all of this as. President of the Council E got onto the ballot without virtually any public scrutiny. The agenda item was conveniently rescheduled more than once. Then City deliberately cut off the Council meeting largest San Diego voting block’s cable provider Spectrum to eliminate public as much opposition testimony as possible for “the Party”. Campbell willfully limited public input, and rammed the removal of the 30ft height limit through the council to get it on the ballot where corporate housing monopolists in “the Party” created the disinformation campaign that became Prop E.
It is outright dishonest to say the Sports Arena and the Height Limit were not fraudulently presented to the voters in Prop C and farcical for you to say “the Mayor” did not propagate misinformation for the Measure C Ballot Measure when the official campaign slogan fraudulently promised “Homes for Working Families”.
I will also go a step further to condemn your stated lies outright. It is duplicitous to imply that “the Mayor” hasn’t had anything to do with the neutering Community Planning Groups when then Assemblymember Gloria Hole set up shop to sell housing legislation to the highest bidder, and worked with Corporate Real Estate Lobbyists to craft AB 3243 in the State Housing Committee.
AB 3243 cut Community Planning Groups effective power by a factor of three. And it proved profitable enough to fill the Gloria Hole with the necessary of campaign cash for “the Party” to repay him by backing his run for Mayor; under the stipulation that he finish the job which he did almost immediately. Fraud Gloria and the crooked Council Cabal has unilaterally effectively has eliminated any power once concentrated in the hands of the People volunteering for Community Planning Groups.
As a registered Dem it is comical the way “the Party” in San Diego used to vilify Conservatives as the problem, then the childish NIMBY divisional tactic to vilify the public to try and divide and conquer and now it is the “State” which leaves us so powerless to self govern. And you wonder why 73% of voters in California no longer identify with either party? You wonder how we got here? Wake up!
Zack it is disingenuous, duplicitous and dishonest (and idiotic) to assume you can run interference for the feeble attempt at pacification by isolating factors as if they took and take place in a vacuum. Californians and San Diegans see the forrest through the trees that the Gloria Hole lives to remove and the public’s parkland that he, Elo-Rivera, La Cava, and Elliot are trying to seize and carve up for their Corporate Oligarchs, in a seemingly hateful rampage against the communities of this City that it has become apparent that he obviously hates.
RECALL TODD GLORIA
Well, that’s just like your opinion man