{"id":312489,"date":"2025-10-18T04:21:13","date_gmt":"2025-10-18T04:21:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/312489\/"},"modified":"2025-10-18T04:21:13","modified_gmt":"2025-10-18T04:21:13","slug":"panel-rules-against-city-on-height-limits-raising-questions-about-redevelopment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/312489\/","title":{"rendered":"Panel rules against city on height limits, raising questions about redevelopment"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Courts\"<\/a>A gavel. (File photo courtesy UC Berkeley Law)<\/p>\n

An appeals court panel on Friday overturned a lower court decision in favor of the city of San Diego regarding Midway District height limits.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal<\/a> considered whether the city complied with state requirements \u201cto 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWe conclude it did not,\u201d the panel said in its ruling and ordered the city to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.<\/p>\n

Also in play were whether the city had identified mitigation measures or disclosed \u201cthe reasons for approving removal of the height limit even if there are significant environmental impacts.\u201d<\/p>\n

The saga dates back to 2020, when voters passed Measure E<\/a> to remove the 30-foot height limit in the Midway.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

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<\/a>. That proposal was passed by voters in 2022.<\/p>\n

The opponents, still unhappy, sued again, maintaining that the decision to exclude the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning area from San Diego\u2019s Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone violated CEQA requirements.<\/p>\n

A key issue for the panel \u2013 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 \u201cwithout actually considering the environmental impacts of buildings greater than 30 feet, other than views and neighborhood character.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis was inadequate,\u201d they continued. \u201cAs a result, neither the City decision makers nor the public were able to make a meaningful decision about the second ballot measure.\u201d <\/p>\n

Friday\u2019s decision overturns the ruling of Superior Court Judge Katherine A. Bacal.<\/p>\n

Everett DeLano, an attorney for the plaintiffs, Save Our Access<\/a>, said in an email that \u201cit\u2019s important to recognize that the court\u2019s 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?\u201d<\/p>\n

An email to the San Diego City Attorney\u2019s Office was not returned, <\/p>\n

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<\/a> of the project last month.<\/p>\n

READ NEXT\n\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A gavel. (File photo courtesy UC Berkeley Law) An appeals court panel on Friday overturned a lower court…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":312490,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5134],"tags":[157543,5229,157544,1582,276,24973,12984,133893,3549,17023,7264,157545,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":{"0":"post-312489","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-san-diego","8":"tag-4th-district-court-of-appeal","9":"tag-america","10":"tag-appellate-court-ruling","11":"tag-ca","12":"tag-california","13":"tag-ceqa","14":"tag-environmental-impact-report","15":"tag-midway-rising","16":"tag-san-diego","17":"tag-san-diego-superior-court","18":"tag-sandiego","19":"tag-save-our-access","20":"tag-united-states","21":"tag-united-states-of-america","22":"tag-unitedstates","23":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","24":"tag-us","25":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115393258319761353","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/312489","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=312489"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/312489\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/312490"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=312489"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=312489"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=312489"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}