The 30-foot height limit is one of San Diego’s most successful examples of community-driven planning
By Mandy Havlik
San Diegans know that our city’s coastline isn’t just a postcard view, it’s our identity, our economy, and our shared responsibility to future generations. The recent Court of Appeal ruling striking down the City’s attempt to bypass the voter-approved 30-foot coastal height limit wasn’t a setback, it was a reaffirmation that the people’s voice and environmental law still matter in San Diego.
When voters passed the Proposition D height limit in 1972, they weren’t trapped in the past, they were protecting the coastline from the same forces of overdevelopment that have erased the character of so many other coastal cities. They knew that the ocean belongs to everyone, not just to developers or investors who see dollar signs instead of waves and wetlands.
The 30-foot height limit is one of San Diego’s most successful examples of community-driven planning. It preserves our coastal beauty, sustains property values, protects public access to beaches, and prevents the shadowing of our natural open spaces. That’s not arbitrary geography, that’s thoughtful stewardship.
The recent appellate ruling stated again that the City violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it failed to adequately study the impacts of lifting the height limit in the 1,324-acre Midway District. CEQA exists to ensure that decisions about growth and development are transparent, data-driven, and environmentally responsible. Rather than blaming piecemeal lawsuits, our leaders should take this as a reminder that laws exist to protect the public interest, not to be skirted for political and economic payoffs.
The community’s concerns about soil liquefaction, traffic congestion, lack of infrastructure, and inadequate evacuation routes in the Midway area are real and well-
documented. Pretending that density alone will fix a housing crisis ignores the physical limits and environmental risks of where we build.
San Diegans overwhelmingly support affordable housing, but affordable doesn’t mean anything, anywhere. It means housing that’s attainable, sustainable, and integrated into existing communities with proper infrastructure, transportation access, and environmental safeguards. There is ample land east of I-5 and within existing transit corridors where density makes sense and environmental risk is lower. The idea that we must sacrifice coastal protections to achieve housing goals is a false choice that benefits developers, not working families.
San Diego’s housing shortage isn’t caused by the height limit, but by poor policy choices. The city has failed to require real a?ordability in new projects, allowed permitting delays, ignored inclusionary housing rules, and left publicly owned land underused. Until those problems are fixed, removing the 30-foot height limit is simply a developer giveaway with no guarantee of affordable homes.
Lifting the height limit won’t create equity, it will deepen inequity. It will allow luxury mid-rises to displace small businesses and long-time residents, privatize the skyline, and push true affordability further out of reach. Coastal access, clean air, open views, and natural light are public goods. Once they’re lost, they’re gone forever.
The conversation we need isn’t about tearing down the safeguards that make San Diego unique. It’s about modernizing how we plan, ensuring every new home is built in a place that’s safe, sustainable, and supported by infrastructure. We can achieve climate-friendly growth without erasing the democratic protections that de?ne our city’s character.
Where we build, and how we build, determines whether San Diego remains the coastal jewel it has been for generations or becomes another cautionary tale of shortsighted
development. We are here because for over 50 years, we have only been building our way out of the housing crisis. We need to try other avenues to bring affordability to our city.
Mandy Havlik is a resident of Point Loma and a candidate for City Council, District 2.
Great article Mandy!
Drove by thousands of what appears to be brand new empty and vacant apartments along the 8 freeway today. That was a reminder that more development and changes to the municipal code should be checked. In central San Diego at least, Point Loma, OB, and PB. Thank you for taking a stance on this. We need leadership like yours to take action.
Add to those thousand plus new, empty, vacant apartments along the 8, Midway Rising is an ambitious plan to build 4,254 new apartments, 14 acres of public space, and a new Sports Arena on 49 acres of city-owned land in the center of the Midway District. So on top of what may be about 6,000 vacancies, Complete Communities are going to be built too. And, how many of all these are affordable in the technical sense of the word? Like you said, affordable means nothing to a lot of people these days. And, for context, a 20 unit Complete Community project can have 3 or 4 affordable units. Just who is going to live in all these 6,000 plus dwelling units?
thank you Mandy for your very helpful article on why we need more local control over our precious resources…
Excellent points, Mandy. The community’s concerns are falling on deaf ears with our current administration. They are finding ways to set up “voting” to get their measures passed (trash fees). Gloria has publicly stated he “will not fail” to let developers build even after the courts ruled his plan for Midway was illegal and irresponsible. We need new leadership before the Peninsula becomes unlivable.
Thank you Mandy. Historical designations have become about tax breaks and houses to the City. To Ocean Beach, historicity is about the community. In England, for example, some views are historically protected. Your article was to the point. It is NOT about individual houses and what is historical; it is about preserving the community as a whole.
Thanks, Mandy. An excellent and well thought through article. I especially like your opening sentence: “San Diegans know that our city’s coastline isn’t just a postcard view, it’s our identity, our economy, and our shared responsibility to future generations.”
I think these two sentences are also very important points to keep in mind. “The conversation we need isn’t about tearing down the safeguards that make San Diego unique. It’s about modernizing how we plan, ensuring every new home is built in a place that’s safe, sustainable, and supported by infrastructure. “
Well, I just drove past the worst site west of the % in PB at Garnet where a 5? or 6 story apartment is going in. They may have “prettied” up the building compared to the photo but still its, well, a POS.
Thanks Mandy for your spot-on article. Everyone (the folks that truly love our city and communities) fully concur. Especially these remarks of your article, which really nails it –
“San Diego’s housing shortage isn’t caused by the height limit, but by poor policy choices. The city has failed to require real affordability in new projects, allowed permitting delays, ignored inclusionary housing rules, and left publicly owned land underused. Until those problems are fixed, removing the 30-foot height limit is simply a developer giveaway with no guarantee of affordable homes.”
. . . followed up by this remark –
“Lifting the height limit won’t create equity, it will deepen inequity. It will allow luxury mid-rises to displace small businesses and long-time residents, privatize the skyline, and push true affordability further out of reach. Coastal access, clean air, open views, and natural light are public goods. Once they’re lost, they’re gone forever.”
What happened last week in the Planning Commission was terrible – most of them handpicked pet poodles of Todd Gloria.
PS – Thanks to Paul Krueger for alerting us on this OB Rag article on Nextdoor.
. . . btw, a disaster that this administration calls “Midway Rising”, should really be appropriately dubbed “Mayday Rising”. This project has disaster written all over it.
If Mandy toes the line, she will be elected, especially if Jen retires or treads up the ladder having faithfully toed this line. Mandy probably understands that the escalating rents is the product of short term leases and the lessor’s ability to refinance by raising rents, incentivizing gentrification. We can’t change this be changing a name on a door. Mandy will probably do her part to facilitate the Navy Real Estate Division’s (NAVFAC) plans for Midway, and lubricate redevelopment in OB and PL, since she will have no organized community backup to stand against the will of a dragon that’s been driving planning in San Diego since the ’80s. But she hasn’t said where she stands for the community regarding the Navy’s plans. Nor has she addressed the weakness in CEQA about global warming, sea level rise and climate change. The toughest part is that unless we address the economic cause of inaffordability: short term >5-year renewable leases with a cap on rent increases, we will produce more congestion, homelessness, inaffordability, gentrification, and global warming. It’s not like we haven’t seen the model.
Some very good points. And with those points, folks need to find out more about her specific platforms. I think we agree that “talking the walk” is always far easier than “walking the walk”. And yes, the NAVFAC property definitely should have much community involvement as redevelopment plans progress.
Just how many giant box structures filled with dwelling units need to be built in San Diego? How many people are seeking housing? I would wager that the number of vacancies city wide is currently far larger than the number of people seeking housing.
I would equally wager that many of those vacancies are because they are unaffordable to the majority of those in need of housing.
The 30-foot height limit, west of I-5 except in downtown, has served the city well for more than 50 years. It is refreshing that Mandy Havlik is making it a center piece of her campaign for District 2.
Voters should take notice of how developer wannabes suddenly become silent when the issue is raised during the campaign.
Don Sevrens
Don, I totally concur.
It really is refreshing that a candidate running for council truly cares for the communities and the people in those communities. Something that is consistently missing from this current city council.
Although I do not live in OB, I believe we must support any candidate, running for any district that supports our communities. I live in Talmadge – Sean Elo’s district. He’s the worst of the worst – in every way but particularly in representing his constituents.
Dear Ralph, no member of the SD city council, nor even candidate for office, has ever represented the consensus of their constituents. To represent a consensus, we would need an authenticated consensus about concerns of people in each community in their district of about 153,000 constituents, and there are many communities.
Today, we have technology that allows us to do this, but it would reduce the power of those whose money and endorsements can win an election in a 150,000 population with 40% who are not voting, primarily because they don’t see the value.
It doesn’t matter what Mandy wants or says, the only way an elected officials can represent their constituents is to inform them inclusively and to have their authentic consensus about decisions that will affect their lives. In earlier times, with smaller communities, this was not so hard to do. With 150,000 constituents and communities as different demographically as La Playa and West Point Loma Blvd. we could use this technology to include those whose views aren’t seen in these unofficial forums, who have no idea about the impact of the city’s plans for Mariner’s Cove or Midway, nor even that they have a voice in such matters: these are the 37% of eligible voters that don’t vote, presumably because their is no way for them to build consensus. And then, Mandy would need to respect their consensus, even when it conflicts with her endorsers and contributors, and her husband’s employer, the formidable, US Navy.
Mandy impresses us with her skills of civil discourse, her intelligent, emotionally conservative disposition–but with no inclusive way for communities to be informed, and build authentic consensus about matters that concern them, her kind disposition may make you feel better about not being heard, but you may feel confused and depressed if it turns out that she represents her constituents little better than Elo.
Michael, I need to correct your implication about my husband and the NAVWAR project. My husband is a disabled Navy combat veteran, and while his service absolutely shapes my understanding of military families’ needs, it has nothing to do with development decisions in Midway or the NAVWAR proposal. His military career has no bearing on my independence or my positions, and it should not be used to suggest otherwise.
Your comparison to Sean Elo Rivera is also off base. He represents a completely different district, with different issues, demographics, and pressures.
And regarding representation, yes, you have spent years promoting the idea of a Point Loma Town Council and app based consensus model, but it never formed. That is because real community engagement is built through actual work, not theoretical structures.
That is what I have been doing for years, showing up in every neighborhood, building trust through direct conversation,
involving residents who are usually left out, taking independent positions based on community needs, not political donors, endorsements, or institutions.
Tech tools can support participation, but they cannot replace genuine engagement, consistency, and follow through. Without that foundation, no model will succeed.
I respect your desire for broader civic participation, but your assumptions about me, and especially about my family, are misplaced.
My record of service, independence, and community leadership speaks for itself.
Mandy, The point of this conversation is not to question anyone’s loyalty to the Navy but to address a genuine conflict of priorities between NAVFAC/NAVWAR and the communities of Point Loma, Ocean Beach and the Midway area. You and I both have deep personal ties to the Navy, but you are the one running for office, and the community must understand how Navy-related development pressures intersect with city governance.
The issue is not the Navy itself, but the way its large, insulated bureaucracy—“a blind elephant in a tea shop”—shapes land-use outcomes in San Diego. NAVFAC and NAVWAR pursue missions unrelated to California’s General Plan Law, yet the City of San Diego, SANDAG, and the Governor effectively defer to them. This has enabled major projects such as Midway Rising, backed by powerful political figures, to move forward with almost no meaningful community input. A tiny group is proposing high-rise construction and thousands of new homes on public land without first asking the residents of Point Loma what they want for these former wetlands.
This imbalance and disregard for community vision is why the Point Loma Town Council (PLTC) was created—to give Point Loma and Ocean Beach residents a free, open mechanism to define their own future. PLTC is part of a broader effort to use democratic consensus as a real governing tool, consistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Consensus is stronger than the influence of developers, contractors, hoteliers, and the real-estate lobby—all of whom profit from fragmented public power.
San Diego’s economic struggles stem not from lack of opportunity but from lack of shared vision, allowing developers, including NAVFAC, to exploit the vacuum. At 85, after decades of professional experience—including writing *Architectronics* (McGraw-Hill, 1987), the first architectural reference on advanced technology in urban development—I helped build PLTC as a platform for communities to regain control over local decision-making. This work evolved into the Own Your Government system, approved by MIT Solve in 2019, which provides secure, reliable, inclusive consensus-building technology.
If elected, you will be responsible not to NAVFAC but to the people of District 2. Representing their consensus is impossible without a trustworthy way to inform residents and gather their collective voice. With this technology, you could help Point Loma, Ocean Beach, Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, and La Jolla articulate shared visions—and perhaps even avoid the political fractures now emerging.
In short, Mandy: this is an opportunity to demonstrate a new model of democratic community planning. It is also an opportunity for Navy leadership to see how cooperative civic visioning can align community well-being with institutional needs, rather than working at cross-purposes.
Very truly, Michael
—
Hi Michael,
Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective and for the thoughtful explanation of the work you have invested in PLTC and your broader vision for community driven consensus. I respect the depth of your experience, especially your long professional background in planning and technology, and I appreciate your commitment to empowering residents in Point Loma, Ocean Beach, and the Midway area.
I agree that land use decisions must be rooted in meaningful community input, transparency, and compliance with state planning laws. That principle is central to why I am running for office. My responsibility, as a candidate and, if elected, as a councilmember, is to the people of District 2, not to NAVFAC, NAVWAR, or any other external pressure. I will always advocate for public engagement, environmental stewardship, and protecting the character and safety of our coastal communities.
While you and I may approach solutions differently, I appreciate the passion you bring to these issues. Thank you again for reaching out, and I wish you well with the continued work you are doing.
Your picture is only: 1 story parking + 4 story units = 5 stories. Think 22 stories. Taking up a whole block. Look at the picture. Will we ever see the sky again when we look out our windows? A privilege, not a right, according to the city.