By Deborah Boss
It was disappointing learning about Akilah Weber Pierson’s Senate Bill 958 focused on a workaround to eliminate CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review for Midway Rising. It’s slated to be one of the largest developments of affordable housing for the State of California.
Do people understand why CEQA was formed and why developers can’t just go around these protections? Stan Kroenke certainly doesn’t understand. He finds ways to work around it when he creates his multi-million dollar stadiums.
Midway Rising is a different kind of development because most of it will be housing and when homes sink into the ground, they have sewage problems or floods someone has to pay. But, should it be the citizens of San Diego? How many times should Save Our Access have to go to court to force the City to accept CEQA review? The California Appellate Court has ruled twice and the California Supreme Court has denied hearing which is why Akilah Weber Pierson’s Bill 978 is coming to fruition in the legislature.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was established in 1970 to require state and local agencies to identify, disclose, and mitigate the environmental impacts of public and private development projects. It was enacted to promote transparency, public participation, and environmental protection in land-use decisions. It is the state’s most important environmental law.
The development of the Midway area has been plagued with many problems.
On October 4, 2023, Midway Rising said that they couldn’t build the planned hotel. An 8-foot sewage line that was undisclosed was discovered below the new arena. The city requires a 30-foot setback from sewage lines to conduct maintenance and repairs, etc. This meant it was not possible to build the arena where it was planned. Now, the arena would be built where the hotel was, leaving no more space to build everything that was promised by the developer.
This problem also eliminated the units specified for the middle class thus demonstrating a bait and switch situation.
The San Diego Sports Arena area is a challenging area to rebuild due to the high groundwater and historical lack of infrastructure, requiring careful redevelopment planning. The site’s location has complex underground factors, including major sewer lines, soil liquefaction (think sinkholes) and high water tables, rising sea levels, ingress/egress issues, traffic patterns, noise pollution and air pollution all necessitating thorough environmental analysis for new construction. These issues were not addressed in the City’s PEIR (Preliminary Impact Report) or SEIR (Supplemental Environmental Impact Report).
It is well known and documented that developer Brad Termini of Zephyr, Midway Rising’s Developer, was a major contributor to Mayor Todd Gloria and related political causes. Termini and his wife donated over $100,000 to support Gloria’s 2020 election, family members from the east coast also contributed and later Zephyr Development contributed $650,000 to a 2022 campaign to remove the 30’ height limit in the Midway area. It is easy to see how these contributions influenced the city’s decision process. The selection process was allegedly decided by the Mayor’s office despite lacking adequate background checks on Termini and his company. It didn’t seem to matter that Zephyr Development had never taken on a project of this magnitude.
In addition, the developer failed to disclose a lawsuit involving unpaid contractor fees, which has since been settled. However, a quick check on San Diego Register of Actions revealed more than a dozen prior lawsuits involving Termini or Zephyr.
Presently, San Diego taxpayers may be on the hook for additional funds required to build Midway Rising.
In an article published by the UT in mid-March 2026, San Diego City Council members voted unanimously to explore the formation of what’s known as an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing. Councilmember Jennifer Campbell stated, “… (To) ensure that we are maximizing the public benefits of the plan, this kind of financing mechanism may be needed.” Most people agree that the Midway Rising area is blighted and should be rebuilt. It’s simply a question of scale and infrastructure.
Hasn’t the City of San Diego had enough bad politics regarding real estate deals? Will Midway Rising be another Ash Street debacle because it’s certainly seems it is heading in that direction.
Deborah Boss is a retired legal assistant and a resident of Loma Portal in Point Loma.
One of the largest developments of affordable housing, which is still in question as to the actual number of units and who is actually paying for those units. Kroenke, I believe got around CEQA for the Rams stadium by a public vote, correct me if I am wrong. And just recently there was a story of New York sinking due to the weight of the skyscrapers. Mainly due to soil conditions and sea level rise.
$100,000 IS A FRICKING BRIBE AND WE ALL KNOW IT! THIS INSANE! What was Mara Eliot’s cut of all of this collusion?
$1-$27 is campaign support. $28-$1000 is a campaign donation. $101-$1,000 is a campaign contribution.
You are correct. Kroenke used a vote sponsored initiative to get around CEQA. Let’s hope that kind of action doesn’t happen here in San Diego. It seems like things will happen very quickly regarding this bill.
SB 958 goes before the California State Environmental Quality Committee on April 15th and is the 1st item on the Agenda. Sen. Catherine S. Blakespear of Encinitas is the Chairperson for the committee.
The 10/17/2025 Court of Appeals ruling on getting rid of the 30 foot height limit documented the City has no mitigation measure for high-rise buildings founded on liquefiable, reclaimed salt water marshes. Current plans for sea level rise is to raised the grade with 5 feet of additional fill, and use mat foundations like are currently used in the Midway area.
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2025/d084132a.html
“However, the initial study did not consider whether constructing tall buildings 100 feet or more along the freeways and up to 65 feet throughout the Midway-Pacific Highway area will change the geological analysis. A person commenting in opposition to the second ballot measure said the 2022 SEIR did not consider rising sea levels, higher groundwater levels and liquefication. “[A]ny time groundwater level is high, and you add high buildings on top of that, it is impossible to have solid bedrock foundations.”
How will building foundational support for numerous tall buildings in the area impact the geological conditions collectively? Will they cumulatively impact hydrology and water quality, such as groundwater? Neither the initial study nor the 2022 SEIR address such questions. … 3. Deferring Environmental Analysis to Site-specific Projects Is Inadequate. Throughout the initial study, largely relying on language from the PEIR, the City commented that potential environmental impacts would be less than significant if site-specific projects comply with various City regulations and standards. … Deferring analyses and mitigation measures to site-specific discretionary development projects to comply with an existing regulatory framework is inadequate when considering a significant change to an entire area at a program level.”
Yes, among the extensive list of the many, many bad things that will be the result of this proposed project if built, the geotechnical issue alone has disaster written all over it.
Key Aspects of Being Fleeced:
Overcharging: Paying an exorbitant or unfair price, such as hidden fees or inflated tourist prices.
Scams & Fraud: Tricked in a scam or dishonest deal.
Context: It is often used to describe unethical business practices, pickpocketing, or shady deals.
the people of San Diego have voted on this twice and both times midway rising was aprovved so stop complaining and dragging this on, Let the redevelopment of Midway area happen and stop writing these smear pieces.
Me thinks you’re missing part of the historic point here: if voters had known all that is needed to be knowledgeable about the project, they wouldn’t have voted for the measures. And don’t forget also that the second time around, it just barely passed.
A little known group made up of volunteers and activists without any real money put up a resistance to the measure and almost toppled it. Keep the Coast 30.
Midway Rising was never on the ballot. No one ever voted on Midway Rising.
There were two ballot measures to end the 30 foot coastal height limit in the Midway area where ever project would require site specific CEQA review and mitigation.
Now Midway Rising will be exempt from CEQA review and mitigation.
Good point KR. The bill has not passed yet.
I recall the entire campaign for the removal of the 30 foot height limit centered around Midway Rising and what it would do for low income housing. That’s how it passed.
Except Midway Rising has a legal loophole in the contract to build ZERO Affordable Housing unless the largest landowner in America, Stan Kroenke, gets 100% free taxpayer funding to build the Affordable Housing.
Then if Kroenke is gifted 100% taxpayer funded Affordable Housing financing, Midway Rising guarantees 1,200 Affordable Units, with a goal of 2,000 Affordable Units. All on the taxpayer’s dime.
Yes with getting rid of the 30 foot coastal height limit votes there was talk about housing and a stadium in general. All with site specific CEQA review and mitigation.
We can get a better deal with Kroenke paying for all the Affordable Housing, CEQA, parking, and traffic mitigation. In exchange for allowing him to build luxury housing and a private stadium on our public land.
Precisely! Thank you for pointing that out and reminding everyone. It is such a bottom feeding, slimy practice to keep insidiously selling the public on affordable housing that NEVER comes to fruition.
Furthermore, Midway Sinking is riding on the coat-tails of the misinformation campaign paid for in the form of $400,000 in bribes that went to the Prop E campaign, that Campbell rammed thru the City Council to get placed on the ballot to cash in on the elimination the 30ft height limit.
That $400,000, via Qatar, in bribery cash flowed into San Diego County from outside of California and outside of the United States donated directly from Canada’s Brookfield Corporation.
The Campbell/Brookfield scheme should bear a $400,000 paper trail will expose at least one PAC tied to proposition campaigners and will most likely include elected politico-corporate monopolists that took money from Brookfield that LEGALLY HAD TO REGISTER AS A FOREIGN AGENTS FOR TAKING THE CASH! Investigate this, for that is the tree most worth shaking, to see what proposition campaigners politicians fall out.
ryan, the people voted NOT KNOWING THE FULL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS because there was no proper CEQA. That’s the point. Did you read the Appellate court ruling? Understand the issues underlying the inadequate EIR that the project is based on. This is the largest construction project in SD history. Not only must the CEQA issue be properly resolved, what is the financial plan at this point in time, given that developers needed an additional year to get finances in place. And do your own research on Brad Termini and Chelsea. This is not what the people voted for.
Cindy is right – the ruling needs to be read to understand all the details regarding the Supreme Court denial. The Appellate Court ruled that EIR and SEIR were based on “. . . . views and neighborhood character.” Is that really enough analysis to go forward with a multi billion (est. $3.9 billion) dollar development in a eco fragile coastline area directly adjacent to the San Diego River and Mission Bay? Why shouldn’t this development have to comply with CEQA? And how much is EIFD is going to be spent on this project? It hasn’t even started and it’s a convuluted mess.
There was reporting controversy around Elliott’s campaign – some sources indicate she failed to report certain lobbyist contributions during her tenure, which complicates the picture of complete transparency.
https://theballotbook.com/jurisdictions/902/local_campaign_committees/95/receipts
https://www.fppc.ca.gov/
The People should file a suit against Mara Eliot the City Attorney, separately for legal malpractice. Not only was she grotesquely negligent, she was willfully negligent which meets the threshold of malfeasance.
Legal malpractice in California is defined as the failure of an attorney to fulfill their professional obligations to a client (the People), resulting in harm to the client (San Diegans, the environment, and public safety) This typically involves negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or breach of contract during the provision of legal services.
In California, malfeasance is defined as the intentional performance of an unlawful act that results in harm to another individual or entity (or in this case San Diegans, the environment, and public safety).
This includes misconduct by public officials or individuals in positions of trust.