Editordude: The following is the substance of Ralph Teyssier’s presentation (slightly edited for clarification) at the Town Hall event at the Point Loma Library, July 28, 2026.
By Ralph Teyssier
Engineering Challenges in Delivering Affordable Housing
Eric Law has discussed the legislative promise of affordable housing, and Patty Ducey-Brooks has addressed the environmental concerns around Midway Rising and Senate Bill 958. I’d like to spend just a couple of minutes discussing the engineering realities of delivering affordable housing.
As a structural engineer, I support affordable housing. But we also need to recognize that SB 958 extends well beyond the Midway Rising project. If enacted, it could influence how future coastal developments are evaluated throughout California. That makes it all the more important that we fully understand the engineering realities, geological conditions, and economic consequences before establishing a statewide precedent. Political will alone does not create affordable housing. Engineering, geology, construction, and economics all play important roles. Nor should we assume that simply allowing taller buildings automatically results in more affordable housing.
In fact, when increased building height is removed from meaningful CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review, it becomes more difficult to fully evaluate the engineering and economic consequences associated with that increased height. In that sense, it works against one of CEQA’s fundamental purposes—providing informed decision-making.
The project’s own geotechnical reports describe this site as a former estuary with artificial fill, shallow groundwater, and a high potential for liquefaction. They identify strong ground motion, liquefaction, seismic compaction, and tsunami hazards that require engineering mitigation.
Those are not overly generalized conclusions— they are definitive specifics directly from the project’s own geotechnical engineers. None of those challenges make the site unbuildable. California engineers successfully design projects on difficult sites every day. But difficult sites are expensive to develop.
Every engineering solution is achievable—but every engineering solution also has a cost.
Ground improvement, deep foundations, settlement mitigation, flood protection, utility improvements, and long-term resilience all add engineering complexity, and every one of these items will be required at this site. All of this engineering complexity adds significant construction cost. Those costs do not disappear simply because the project is intended to include affordable housing.
The original geotechnical studies evaluated an earlier concept of approximately eight to twelve stories. Today, substantially taller buildings have been discussed. As buildings become taller, structural demands, foundation demands, and construction costs generally increase as well.
That leads to a very simple question: If the primary justification for eliminating the coastal height limit is to create affordable housing, has anyone demonstrated that this is the most economical engineering solution for delivering that affordable housing?
While these engineering realities are specific to the Midway Rising site, the broader policy implications are not. SB 958 would establish a framework that could influence future development decisions on other complex coastal sites across California—many of which may present similar geotechnical, environmental, infrastructure, and resiliency challenges.
As engineers, we don’t begin by asking how tall we can build. We begin by understanding where we’re building, what the site requires, and what those requirements will ultimately cost.
Public policy should follow that same disciplined approach. Before establishing a statewide precedent that could shape future coastal development throughout California, we should first understand the engineering realities, environmental constraints, infrastructure capacity, and long-term consequences of those decisions.
Good engineering— and good public policy— don’t begin with what we hope to build. They begin with understanding where we are building.
Thank you, Ralph. Informative and important.
“All of this engineering complexity adds significant construction cost.”
Since it has been proven already that the City – i.e., the mayor and developer – want to shortcut the process, shortcut the CEQA analysis, diminish promised projects such as the hotel and middle-income residential units — supposedly because of COST – I think there would be every expectation that the “Ground improvement, deep foundations, settlement mitigation, flood protection, utility improvements, and long-term resilience” associated with the Project would also be short-cutted or shortchanged or diminished in some manner. Do you trust them at this point?
The intrusion of Sacramento into local San Diego affairs has always been to cram some great idea they have in Sacramento down out throats.
The citizens voted in the 1950’s in a landslide to reject the addition of hazardous waste hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) and without asking us crammed it down our throats. That cramming has cost us more than $200M in increased water bills and they lament the high cost of living.
Now thanks to a 7 years lawsuit against the National Toxicological Program (NTP) for failure to to the job congress formed them to do (Evaluate substances we consume) even the scientists at the NTP agree with the citizens that adding this toxic substance is “an unreasonable risk”.
We do not need lobbiests in Sacramento to determine local government functions like for example costal access. Nobody will get into or out of OB or Point loma once the baracade is build. It’s jammed now on good weather days.
Well said, Ralph. Yes, we can build anything anywhere if we spend enough money.
Imagining the whole area at once, I see tall buildings built on long piles to hold them up in case of ground movement or subsidence. But, what about everything all around those buildings? All the underground utilities? How will everything else be supported to rise or sink as one?
I worked on a bridge project in Idaho where one side of the bridge was attached to an ancient, slow moving slide. It was designed to move with it to a point, but periodically – this was pre-planned – crews had to realign that side so it would be good for a few more years before needing attention again. Is that what will happen in Midway? Who will pay for all the work?