WORKSHOP AIMS TO TACKLE KINKS IN BAYFRONT PLAN
Commissioners agree on fewer hotel rooms in North Embarcadero
The seven appointed leaders who oversee San Diego’s tidelands are largely in agreement on the needed corrections to a planning document that will govern bayfront development in future decades, but are leaving unaddressed some matters of public dispute and at least one area that may run afoul of coastal regulations.
On Monday, the Board of Port Commissioners convened to receive community input on the Port Master Plan Update Revised Draft. The document was released for a four-week review period in October and received more than 400 comment letters. In development since 2013, the new
policy rulebook will, when completed, inform all future projects in and around San Diego Bay.
The virtual gathering was part of the Port of San Diego’s efforts to finalize the longrange vision for the 34 miles of
tidelands that it governs, and marked the last opportunity for the public to weigh in on potential changes before the issuance of a draft environmental impact report next year.
Formed by the state in 1962, the San Diego Unified Port District is self-funded, generating revenue from businesses operating on tidelands such as hotels, restaurants, cruise lines and cargo operators. The land, held in public trust by the port, spans coastal regions in San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, National City and Imperial Beach.
Although the board did not take a formal action, commissioners told port staffers that they are in support of further decreasing the number of allowed hotel rooms in the North Embarcadero, meaning building heights will be reduced in some areas, and the maximum new rooms allowed will be 750 as opposed to 950.
Similarly, board members are aligned in wanting to maintain a districtwide policy that prohibits the construction of new private piers.
There was also agreement among the board that port planners should revisit district policies to address racial equity. The direction was provided after some commenters called into question past policies that have overlooked areas such as Barrio Logan, National City and Chula Vista.
For instance, the port has primarily invested in “tourist-serving destinations or in communities where individuals with enough political clout or money to hire lobbyists have been able to get the port to ‘ pay attention’ to their demands,” the Latino Equity Council Host Committee wrote in its response to the revised draft.
“This year has been a watershed moment,” said Commissioner Rafael Castellanos. “As I’ve ref lected this year, from very personal experiences of my own ... that like all organizations, like all institutions in this country, we certainly are the result of a long and systemic reality that certainly has disadvantaged some communities more than others.
“Although the port master plan is a long-range planning document, many of the equity-related comments do have a home in the (document). I would support that staff take a very hard look at the elements, the policies and the goals in the draft (document), to see how they can be appropriately modified to make it clear that equity is as broad and as specific of a concept as possible.”
The meeting, however, sidestepped many of the concerns outlined by the California Coastal Commission in its Nov. 25 comment letter to the proposed master plan.
In the letter, the superseding agency, which will later be asked to certify the plan, requested the port extend the public review period for the document. The request was echoed by a number of public speakers, including Sharon Cloward, who spoke on behalf of the Port Tenants Association, and several members of the Embarcadero Coalition.
In addition, the Coastal Commission reaffirmed a stance that the La Playa Piers need to be fully public or torn down in order for the port to be in compliance with the Coastal Act. That’s in contrast to the current version of the planning document, which states that the four private piers along the La Playa Trail in Point Loma can remain as is with partial public access during daytime hours.
The higher-ranking agency also suggested revisions to the proposed standards for affordable lodging and challenged the port’s treatment of the Central Embarcadero.
The latter takes issue with the port’s recent decision to exclude the forthcoming redevelopment plan for the subdistrict, which includes Seaport Village and Embarcadero Marina Park North, from the plan. Developer 1HWY1 has pitched, but not secured approval for, a 70-acre redevelopment effort known as Seaport San Diego. The project calls for 2,050 hotel rooms spread across different properties, a 500-foot observation tower, and hundreds of thousands of square feet of retail, research and educational uses.
“This project is of interest to the public and commission staff, and would have significant impacts to the adjacent Embarcadero and downtown areas if implemented. As such, it is unclear how the (revised port master plan update) is able to comprehensively address planning in this area without the inclusion of policies that address this future project,” coastal planner Melody Lasiter wrote in the agency’s comment letter to the document. “To avoid piecemealing, we recommend that this project be reincorporated into the (plan).”
Several public speakers during Monday’s hearing were equally dismayed by the decision to exclude the proposed Central Embarcadero project, characterizing the deletion as misleading to the public by suggesting that on-the-ground conditions will remain.
“The removal of the Central Embarcadero, which includes Tuna Harbor and the G Street Mole, from ... the port master plan update has come as a great surprise,” said Peter Flournoy of the American Tuna Boat Association. “The exclusion of the Central Embarcadero is contrary to the goal of a unified planning policy. Worse yet, it leaves the Central Embarcadero tenants not knowing if the developer will be held to the principles of the (1981) port master plan or the updated master plan.”