OB Rag Staff Report
The controversial Midway Rising project will move one step closer to being a done deal on Tuesday, September 22, when the City Council receives a closed session briefing “regarding the price and payment terms for potential long-term ground leases.”
As the Union-Tribune reported August 20, “Although not formally docketed, the proposed real estate deal between the city and the development team is expected to be taken up by San Diego’s Land Use & Housing Committee on Oct. 8, Councilmember Kent Lee, who chairs the committee, told the [newspaper].”
City Hall wants to fast-track the project, but the public must still be heard. Tuesday’s closed session agenda notes that “public testimony … will be taken during the 10:00 a.m. Council meeting.”
For San Diegans who fear that the Midway project will result in overcrowding, traffic congestion, air pollution, loss of naturally occurring affordable housing, and flood risks from a rising water table, Tuesday will provide an opportunity to speak that was promised but not delivered at State Senator Akilah Weber Pierson’s shameful August 9 “Community Conversation.”
If you plan on commenting Tuesday, either in person or virtually, be aware that Council President Joe La Cava may look for ways to stop you from speaking.
On August 24, the Council took a formality vote to rescind Measure C, the initiative struck down in court that would have let Midway Rising exceed the 30-foot height limit.
When members of the public tried to voice objections to Midway Rising, La Cava tried to cut them off by insisting they could only talk about Measure C.
To prevent that from happening again, begin your comments Tuesday by emphasizing you want to address negotiations over the Midway Rising lease that the Council is about to consider. Then express your concerns about what the lease should and should not include.
A final and complete Geotechnical Investigation Report with foundation recommendations does not exist for Midway Rising in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The existing technical studies are incomplete. There is only a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report dated 01/17/2024. Over +2.5 years is more than enough time to write a final Geotechnical Investigation Report for final deep foundation recommendations. You would think with the 1,000 of pages these outstanding issues would have been addressed.
The Preliminary report does not mention the existing Sports Arena has a structural bathtub foundation which is the solution to future proof against Sea Level Rise (SLR), would get rid of the seismic hazard of liquefaction down to 60 feet, and would provide underground parking and stormwater capture. If the Preliminary report discussed the existing subterranean structural bathtub foundation solution for Midway Rising that would have been great. It only mention that stone columns and deep foundations have been used in the past. It did not say exactly if deep foundations will be used or the depths to embedment.
The Preliminary report states something vague about added adding additional fill soils to raise the grade. From presentations the plan is to add an additional 5 to 10 feet of fill. Which would be subject to the same type of soils collapse with uplift and inundation from Sea Level Rise (SLR), King Tides, and Storm Surges on reclaimed former salt water marshland with a low water table.
Because there are no final foundation recommendations, there is a chance that cheap at-grade mat foundations would be used in some areas. The only mitigation measure that the City of San Diego has for SLR is porous pavement so that asphalt and concrete will not break with uplift from King Tides and Storm Surges.
There are also no traffic mitigation measures in consultation with Caltrans for access to Interstates I-8 and I-5. Why is this information missing in the EIR?
In 1979, Scripps Institute of Oceanography (SIO) wrote a white paper entitled “The 1862 Earthquake in San Diego” which documents liquefaction in the Midway area near the San Diego River, and at La Playa. With “higher intensity on marshy ground.”
https://tinyurl.com/19790101a
The SIO paper states:
“Several accounts (l,2,4) mention cracks in low ground near the San Diego River, which washed over its banks (1,4). At La Playa (on Point Loma), cracks formed on the beach, water came out of the sand on the tidal flats, and a piling that had just been driven into the mud was shaken loose. Some bluff banks on the east side of Point Loma collapsed…
… Based on the descriptions given here, we estimate that this earthquake caused shaking in San Diego of about intensity VI to VII on the Modified Mercalli scale….
… Ground cracking is usually associated with intensity VI11, but this is certainly too high, judging by the effects on buildings. It is that this reflects higher intensity on marshy ground.”
The white paper did not include any local San Diego newspaper articles about the 1862 earthquake. According to AI, and the SDUT, San Diego did not have a local newspaper from 1860-1868 that would have documented the damage from liquefaction in the Midway area.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2020/05/29/san-diegos-first-newspaper-was-published-in-1851/
IMO this closed session “conference” to discuss lease terms, is premature in that per the SEIR, “The City of San Diego City Council (City Council) must consider the Project, review the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures analyzed in this SEIR, and determine whether any Project alternatives would meet the key objectives of the Project while avoiding or substantially lessening its significant environmental impacts should it be approved. The City Council will also decide if the Project conforms to regulations and policies, such as those in the 2008 City of San Diego General Plan (2008 General Plan) and 2018 Community Plan ….” The SEIR also includes ALTERNATIVES – one of which is a no-build choice. “The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) compare the effects of a “reasonable range of alternatives” to the effects of a project.” The City Council has not done so, so why are they trying to make a deal without even knowing the design or been able to discuss mitigation of the Significant and Avoidable Impacts of the Project. The pretty conception drawings are not what will be built: “All graphics, drawings, and photographs in the Specific Plan are shown for illustrative purposes only and do not reflect a final development, building configuration, public space shape or size, or land use location.” Needs a major overhaul. The median allocation for park agencies is 9.9 to 10.6 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. To match this standard, a developer would incorporate roughly 100 acres of blended parks, greenways, and accessible open space for 10,000 people – this “Village” is also for general public don’t forget. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/attachment-5-eir.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
“Naturally occurring affordable housing” does not exist in San Diego, and would only exist if we let the free market actually do its thing, and let people build what the market demands on the land they own. A 30 foot height limit and density restrictions do exactly the opposite of that, which is why prices are so out of control here. I know you guys don’t like this project but the lack of basic economic understanding needs to be called out.
We need to call out your lack of basic econ understanding: 1) there is indeed naturally occurring affordable housing — there’s lots of condo/ apartment units especially in and around the area of the Midway near the sports arena; 2) the 30-foot height limit has been blamed for lots of things — and you continue it here – blaming it for “out of control” prices. It’s also been blamed for all the homelessness and for insufficient affordable housing. None of that is true. Our local politicians allowed developers to go hogwild over the last few decades and build all kinds of market rate and beyond housing, so now we have a glut of market-rate (and apartments btw), but not enough affordable units. We don’t have a housing crisis, we have an affordable housing crisis.