Editordude: Here’s two not-too-far-apart views of Friday, Oct. 17’s Appeals Court ruling that overturned a lower court decision regarding Midway District 30-foot height limits. The first is from Times of San Diego and the second is from Voice of San Diego.This new ruling by a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal concluded the City of San Diego did not comply with state requirements “to adequately inform the public of the potential environmental impacts of approving the second ballot measure to remove the height limit in the Midway-Pacific Highway area.” The panel then ordered the city to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.
This does put the future of the redevelopment project of the Sports Arena area, Midway Rising, in doubt. Residents around the city are already popping champagne bottles in celebration. People who fought against that second ballot measure are breathing a sigh of relief. Yet Midway Rising developers claim they’re not worried and that they can still build their project. And just last month the $3.9 billion project Midway Rising got a thumbs up from the Planning Commission. Plus the knowledge that money talks in this town and that this decision itself can be appealed, should be a pause in those celebrations.
by Jennifer Vigil / Times of San Diego / Oct. 17, 2025
… The three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal considered whether the city complied with state requirements “to adequately inform the public of the potential environmental impacts of approving the second ballot measure to remove the height limit in the Midway-Pacific Highway area.”
“We conclude it did not,” the panel said in its ruling and ordered the city to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Also in play were whether the city had identified mitigation measures or disclosed “the reasons for approving removal of the height limit even if there are significant environmental impacts.”
The saga dates back to 2020, when voters passed Measure E to remove the 30-foot height limit in the Midway. The district had been included in a zone of coastal communities that has been protected since 1972, but the height limits also barred replacing what is now known as Pechanga Arena and redevelopment of the aging streets around it.
Opponents sued the city over alleged CEQA violations, but during the court battle, city officials decided to place new language before voters, which ultimately became Measure C. That proposal was passed by voters in 2022. The opponents, still unhappy, sued again, maintaining that the decision to exclude the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning area from San Diego’s Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone violated CEQA requirements.
A key issue for the panel – the 30-feet height limit under the overlay zone and whether city environmental studies had properly taken it into account. The justices determined that the city moved forward “without actually considering the environmental impacts of buildings greater than 30 feet, other than views and neighborhood character.
“This was inadequate,” they continued. “As a result, neither the City decision makers nor the public were able to make a meaningful decision about the second ballot measure.”
Friday’s decision overturns the ruling of Superior Court Judge Katherine A. Bacal.
Everett DeLano, an attorney for the plaintiffs, Save Our Access, said in an email that “it’s important to recognize that the court’s decision recognizes the special role CEQA plays in informing the public about the extent of potential environmental impacts. This is certainly very important when the question is put to a vote of the public. How else can the public know what they are voting on?”
An email to the San Diego City Attorney’s Office was not returned,
What the decision means for the Midway Rising redevelopment project remains to be seen. The proposal includes a new entertainment arena at the sports arena site, more than 4,200 units of housing and 14 acres of parks. Planning commissioners voted in favor of the project last month.
Another Embarrassing Court Ruling for City
By Scott Lewis / Voice of San Diego / Oct. 20, 2025
Twice, in five years, the city of San Diego has put on the ballot a measure to lift the height limit in Midway. Twice, voters approved it. And, now twice, a state Court of Appeal has thrown it all out because the city didn’t properly or fully study its impact to the environment.
Friday the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that the city’s attempt to fix what it did wrong the first time came up short.
The direct impacts: The 30-foot height limit is reinstated in the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning Area.
The unknown impacts: What’s this mean for the project — Midway Rising — that promised a new arena and many higher-than-30-foot structures in Midway, including a new arena? The city did these ballot measures that the judges have now thrown out explicitly to facilitate Midway Rising and the similar project envisioned before it. Now that the height limit is law, and not changing anytime soon, surely the project is in trouble?
No, the development team behind Midway Rising is sending the message they can use other means to get permits for higher buildings. It’s unclear how.
The mayor didn’t want to commit.
“We are working with the City Attorney’s Office to evaluate this ruling and determine our next steps,” said Rachel Laing, the mayor’s spokesperson.
Why it matters: The area affected is bigger than Midway Rising in the Sports Arena land. Hundreds of owners of lots in the area could have considered much different development opportunities with the height limit no longer a consideration.
But Midway Rising is big just last month got a thumbs up from the Planning Commission. It is an estimated $3.9 billion project. If it somehow collapses, it would be yet another transformational project the city has been unable to successfully pull off because of its sloppy legal efforts.
More from Scott Lewis on this
Judges do not like to reverse things voters do. They are reluctant to void ballot measures the public approves. And yet, now, to the complete shame of the city of San Diego, its leadership and the city attorney’s office, the Court of Appeal has once again thrown out a ballot measure that lifted the height limit for building construction in the Midway District.
Friday, in its ruling, the court agreed with the activist group Save Our Access, which argued that the city had, once again, failed to do a full report examining the environmental impacts of raising the height limit in the neighborhood.
Background: The area is subject to the 1972 voter-approved 30-foot coastal height limit. Like SeaWorld did 25 years ago, the city put up a ballot measure in 2020 to remove the heigh limit for the area.
Save Our Access argued then that the city did not do a special, required environmental impact report on the project. The city said the report it did for the whole neighborhood when it updated the community plan was sufficient. The court supported Save Our Access.
So the city did a new, supplemental environmental impact report. But city leaders only added an analysis of the impact of the change to views and neighborhood character. They believed that, because the community plan still limited density, regardless of the change of height, it didn’t need to analyze anything more than it’s impact on the way things look. Again, Save Our Access sued. And again, they have now won.
Here’s the ruling:
“The issue before us now is limited: whether the City complied with the CEQA requirements to adequately inform the public of the potential environmental impacts of approving the second ballot measure to remove the height limit in the Midway-Pacific Highway area, to identify possible mitigation measures, and to disclose the reasons for approving removal of the height limit even if there are significant environmental impacts. We conclude it did not.”
The Court of Appeal said the earlier ruling had expressly anticipated the city would study not just the impact of the change to views but other “potential impacts” to things like noise, air pollution and biological resources. The city did not do this.
The ruling is an extraordinary and embarrassing setback for the city. I was not able late Friday to get reaction from the mayor or city attorney. If you assumed that obviously they would make sure they didn’t screw it up the second time the way they did the first time, you were wrong.
What about the big sports arena development? Midway Rising, which promises thousands of affordable and market-rate housing units plus a new sports arena, plans to go well above the 30-foot height limit. It’s the project about which the mayor is most proud.
Reached late Friday the development team said they have a plan to argue the state and city density bonus laws (laws that allow builders to build higher and more densely if they provide affordable housing units in their project) will make it possible for them to continue with the project.
Either side can ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider the decision by filing a petition for rehearing. This is used to point out mistakes the court made in its opinion. Generally, the court will agree to a rehearing only if the mistake is a major error of fact or law, or if an important argument was not considered in the court’s decision. (Court of Appeals website)
A party must file a petition for rehearing within 15 days after the Court of Appeal opinion.
Either side can ask the California Supreme Court to review the decision by filing a petition for review. The Supreme Court only agrees to hear a small number of cases.
I must say–all the coverage seems to focus on the poor city being overturned by the evil appellate court. Nonsense–what this is about is the city is unwilling (and probably unable) to legally trample on basic rules that include the public and common sense. $$$ City doing the bidding of developers and not the people. It is the city’s failing not the courts. Just as we can’t be hoodwinked into voting agains GLBTQX marriage because it violates basic rights we can’t just put up a slick package and hoodwink the voters into voting in something wrong.
To quote the 10/17/25 Union Tribune article, “The opinion identified in detail four areas where the city’s analysis is inadequate: noise, air quality, biological resources and geological conditions. For instance, when it comes to geological conditions, the justice noted that the Midway District is largely built on artificial fill susceptible to liquefication and settlement.”
Ah, yes… LIQUEFACTION, which happens when the motion of an earthquake temporarily reduces the soil to “quicksand”. The area is designated a geologic hazard zone on maps found on the city website. How greedy do you have to be to build high rise residences on SWAMP land?
“The Court of Appeal said the earlier ruling had expressly anticipated the city would study not just the impact of the change to views but other “potential impacts” to things like noise, air pollution and biological resources. The city did not do this.”
Why do neither the court or the article point out that the increase in daily traffic through the area (Sports Arena Blvd., intersection of Midway/Sports Arena/W.Pt. Loma Blvd. which includes access ramp to I-8E from the northbound section of Sports Arena Blvd.) , Rosecrans to Camino del Rio West (I-8E ramp), and Rosecrans to eastbound Taylor St. which narrows after the entrance to Presidio Park and is often used in the afternoon as a means to bypass the more westerly access points to I-8E? This is a very complex roadway area and needs to be studied carefully when (if) a new EIR is undertaken.
I am a lawyer although not a CEQA lawyer. It is true that the CA Supreme Court approves review of very few cases. However, the standard of review used by the appellate court diverges from the more lenient standard that is customarily applied to government agencies’ program EIRs. So, the implications for municipalities across the state is that the EIRs they have adopted and certified (usually for community plans) may be inadequate and require additional environmental review. If that is the case, then development of nearly any kind could become much more difficult. See the article below which applies to the previous appellate decision in the previous lawsuit filed by Save our Access. The standard of review in both appellate decisions was the same. On those grounds, the City may be able to make a compelling case that the Supreme Court should review, as there could very well be implications of “statewide concern”.
https://www.ceqachronicles.com/2023/08/standard-of-review-surprise-fair-argument-applies-despite-prior-program-eir-according-to-fourth-district/