California Bills Aim to Cut CEQA Housing Barriers, Bolstering San Diego's Midway Rising Project

Two California Senate bills, SB 958 and SB 344, have cleared the state Legislature and currently await Governor Gavin Newsom's signature. These measures could significantly reduce barriers to housing development across California by streamlining environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), particularly impacting the high-profile Midway Rising redevelopment project in San Diego.

Governor Newsom has until the end of September 2026 to sign or veto the bills, which have been widely reported by outlets including HousingWire, The San Diego Union-Tribune, and the Los Angeles Times.

What is the Midway Rising Project?

The Midway Rising redevelopment project is a nearly $4 billion proposed development slated for the former Sports Arena site in San Diego, south of Mission Bay. The ambitious plan includes replacing the decades-old Pechanga Arena with a new 16,000-seat facility, constructing 4,254 homes—with up to 2,000 designated as affordable units—alongside commercial and outdoor spaces. Voice of San Diego reported roughly 4,250 housing units, while CalMatters specified a 25-story professional arena and nearly 15 acres of public parks. The project, backed by Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke, features a proposed 25-story structure that would stand 165 feet tall, significantly exceeding the neighborhood's existing 30-foot building height cap.

How would SB 958 impact CEQA challenges?

Senate Bill 958 (SB 958) proposes to prevent increased building heights from being considered a "significant impact" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This measure was initially tailored to address height challenges for the Midway Rising project but was later amended to apply to similar projects statewide. If signed into law, SB 958 would effectively negate prior court rulings related to building height challenges, making it easier for large-scale developments to proceed without height-related CEQA lawsuits.

What does SB 344 do for Midway Rising?

Senate Bill 344 (SB 344) specifically targets the Midway Rising project, establishing that once its environmental impact report (EIR) is certified, the project would satisfy applicable state environmental requirements. This provision effectively "deems Midway Rising in full compliance with the state's landmark California Environmental Quality Act," as reported by HousingWire, thereby shielding the project from future CEQA lawsuits after its EIR certification.

Who supports these bills and why?

Support for SB 958 and SB 344 comes from various officials who see the bills as crucial for addressing California's housing crisis and promoting urban development. State Senator Akilah Weber Pierson (D-La Mesa), who represents the neighborhood where Midway Rising would be built, led the push for both bills. She stated, “SB 344 and SB 958 represent important steps forward for San Diego and the future of the Midway District. At a time when families are struggling to find affordable places to live, SB 344 gives Midway Rising a path to deliver much-needed affordable housing, permanent jobs, community spaces, and a health clinic in a part of our city that is ready for investment.”

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria has also been a strong supporter of the project and bills, declaring, “Let me be crystal clear, the redevelopment of the sports arena will move forward. We will get this done.” Jeff Meyer, spokesperson for Midway Rising, noted that Senator Weber Pierson's legislation "provides greater certainty" for the developer. UC Davis property law professor Chris Elmendorf observed, “San Diego in particular has had some bad experiences with CEQA litigation over efforts to rezone this very area. I think in light of that experience it's totally understandable that the proponents of the project would be going to the Legislature and asking for help.” Assemblymember Chris Ward, a co-author on one of the bills, added, “We've had years of public conversation around trying to do something good for the sports arena, for community development in that area.”

Both SB 958 and SB 344 passed the state Senate unanimously. SB 344 passed the Assembly with 72 votes out of a possible 80.

Who opposes the bills and what are their concerns?

Despite broad support, the bills have faced criticism. Former San Diego Assemblymember Lori Saldaña called SB 344 “reckless and rushed” because it didn't allow the public to weigh in. She also raised concerns that the site is unsuitable for development due to sea-level rise causing street flooding. Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (Republican) voted against SB 344 in the Assembly, stating, “To sit here and say a politically connected developer gets an exemption — that is an awful message to send.” Eric Law, chair of an unnamed organization, also criticized the statewide scope of SB 958.

Two lawmakers, including Assemblymember DeMaio, voted against SB 344 in the Assembly. If signed by Governor Newsom, these bills could set a precedent for how large-scale housing projects navigate California's environmental laws, potentially accelerating development but also raising questions about community input and environmental protections.

This is educational information, not legal, financial, tax, or investment advice.