By Frank Gormlie / OB Rag
There are gray storms brewing over Mission Bay – or rather over the future of Mission Bay. And in particular, over the future of the northeast corner of Mission Bay, the largest aquatic park on the West Coast.
In a nutshell, there are conflicting visions over what should happen to the area at issue between the City of San Diego’s development plans versus what is envisioned by environmentalists, led by the San Diego Audubon Society.
Because of a confluence of changes to the northeast corner of Mission Bay, the future uses and development of it are now up for grabs. In some sense, it’s an all-too-familiar classic stand-off between the forces fighting to develop every corner of available land with those trying to preserve and enlarge the natural sections.
The City has proposed a series of options that include developing playing fields, campgrounds, open spaces for festivals, water sports areas, children’s playgrounds, a restaurant cluster in the former Visitors’ Center, along with piers, sand volleyball courts, skate parks, community gardens, bridges, boardwalks and tunnels for cars.
Meanwhile, the Audubon Society has stepped in – creating its ReWild Mission Bay campaign – and has crafted three options of its own, all with the emphasis to restore the wetlands, to improve water quality, reduce flooding, adapt to climate change, and support fish, birds, other animals and plants, plus protect wetlands from the negative impacts of human activity, and provide community engagement with the enlarged natural resources via access, recreation, and education.
A central theme of ReWild Mission Bay is the need for more marshlands – or wetlands – to help mitigate the effects of coastal sea level rise, and given the estimates of a 2-foot sea level rise by 2050, it is necessary to expand the acreage of those marshlands of northeast Mission Bay. (This estimate, by the way, is relied upon by the California Coastal Commission.)
Some say it’s a once in a 50-year opportunity – this confluence of changes. How did all of this come about?
In the immediate sense, the storm is about the future of an estimated 210 acres. These include:
- the 76-acre mobile home park on De Anza Point
- the 50-acre Campland on the Bay site,
- the 46-acre Mission Bay golf course,
- and the 40 acres of remaining marshland in the park known as the Kendall-Frost Marsh.
After decades of litigation, the city was finally successful in forcing out the inhabitants of the mobile home park at De Anza. The opening up of this land is naturally no a surprise to city planners. With the upcoming expiration of Campland at the Bay’s lease in 2018, and with an icy reception by people in Pacific Beach over the golf course remaining, the city began making plans.
Now, the 210 acres of the northeast corner is a tiny fraction – less than 3% – of the entire 4,500 acres of Mission Bay, which, of course, was originally a huge estuary of the San Diego River – all wetlands and marshes. When the Spanish first arrived, they called it “Baia Falsa” – False Bay – because the water level was so shallow.
Beginning in the 1940s after World War II and into the Sixties, the city aggressively dredged Mission Bay in order to manufacture a gigantic water park. It made islands, where there was none – like Fiesta Island – with the dredging. Also during much of that time, the southern rim of Mission Bay was used as a domestic and industrial waste dump (the area just east of SeaWorld and north of the River).
It took some decades for San Diegans to come to value the natural aspects of the Bay, but in 1994, the Mission Bay Park Master Plan was updated to prioritize preserving and restoring nature.
Now, the debate continues.
In late November of 2016, the City unveiled 3 proposals for the future of the 120 acres, which included the restaurant cluster, a combination of recreational amenities already mentioned and some restored marshland.
Each of the proposals call for playing fields, campgrounds, festival open spaces, water sports areas, children’s playgrounds and a restaurant cluster. Also, each one has a strip of restored marshland. Where the city’s proposals differ is whether De Anza Point is kept intact or separated into small islands, and whether the golf course is expanded, revamped or replaced with a small golf practice area.
The City contends that it decided years ago that the Campland RV resort would be turned into a restored marshland, once the lease expires next year. And the golf course was put on the table after PB community leaders complained of the costs of irrigation water and that it wasn’t environmentally-friendly while only a small group of people utilized the course.
Criticism of the city’s proposals was swift. Rebecca Schwartz, the Audubon Society’s point person on Mission Bay and director of conservation, also served on the City’s planning committee for the park, had a pointed reaction. She said there was not enough marshland in the proposals, that they were shortsighted economically, and didn’t reflect public input over the last year at workshops and community meetings. Schwartz told the press:
“We heard three main desires from the public — community-oriented recreation, space for camping and habitat restoration — and all of their plans focus on the first two and give barely a nod to habitat restoration.
“We were expecting more of a range, sort of the environmental option, the camping option and the recreation option.It’s basically the same puzzle pieces that they’ve moved around a little bit, but they are remarkably similar.”
Schwartz’s argument is that if the marshlands aren’t restored sufficiently to help mitigate and absorb a long-term sea-level rise in Mission Bay Park then the aquatic playground which draws thousands of locals and visitors every year will not continue to be a huge revenue source for the city.
She maintains that the more wetlands that are restored, the more bird watchers and nature lovers will visit, and the cleaner the water is, the more visitors will swim and participate in other water sports. This is no small vision as the water of East Mission Bay has been historically the most polluted in the park.
Last September, Rewild Mission Bay, the campaign by the San Diego chapter of the Audubon Society, was unveiled – then it included 8 scenarios for the northeast corner. Then just over a month ago, in late April, ReWild released three revised proposals that all included more wetlands, mainly due to sea level rise.
ReWild’s 3 options propose between 164 and 240 acres of marshland, acreage that will substantially be reduced over the decades by the rise of the sea. The California Coastal Commission predicts a rise of two feet by 2050 and an increase of five-and-a-half feet by 2100.
Scenario A calls for 240 acres, which would shrink to 145 acres in 2050.
Scenario B calls for 200 acres, which would shrink to 124 acres by 2050.
Scenario C calls for 164 acres, which would shrink to 83 acres by 2050.
Each of the Rewild proposals call for roughly 90 acres for recreation but do not identify any recreational amenities. They do call for the marsh areas to be “bordered by more nature-based recreation, such as trails, overlooks, picnic areas, kayaking, tent camping and nature photography. They recommend more intense activities be located farther away.”
Schwartz of the Audubon Society said:
“When you’re zooming into the northeast corner it can look like a lot. But when you take a step back, you realize what a small portion of the bay we are talking about. It’s more a nod to the history of Mission Bay than a full-scale transformation.”
She added that expanding the marshland was necessary to achieve the goal of the Mission Bay Park Master Plan for 120 acres of marshland — which would include the Kendall Frost Marsh and another 80 acres.
The City will issue revised proposals, based on public feedback, in June. The goal is to decide on a proposal in 2017, do an environmental analysis, and garner final approval from the City Council and the Coastal Commission possibly in 2019.
No one knows the price tags on any of the proposals – but obviously millions would have to be spent. City voters, however, approved Measure J last November, which boosted potential funding sources by clinching an estimated $1.5 billion for San Diego’s regional parks from lease revenues in Mission Bay Park.
How and when the storm clouds over Mission Bay clear up is still unknown. The future of Mission Bay hinges on which vision – or compromise – is selected.
It’s not too late for more public input. Schwartz of the Audubon Society said:
“There’s still plenty of time for people to get involved and make their opinions known. Nothing is set in stone.”
For details, visit ReWild Mission Bay or deanzarevitalizationplan.com.
Did you know?
Marshland filters carbon dioxide from the air, boosts the quality of water that passes through, and can act as a sponge to mitigate rising sea levels expected as ongoing climate change accelerates.
Marshes, sometimes called wetlands, are also crucial to the survival of many migratory birds that connect marine life with land-based animals and plants.
Sources:
Sept 27, 2016 San Diego U-T
Nov 26, 2016 SD U-T
April 25, 2017 BreakingNews
San Diego Audubon ReWild Mission Bay
“Mission Bay started its life as a 4,500-acre estuary complex at the mouth of the San Diego River. From the 1940s to the 1960s, the City of San Diego dredged most of the wetlands to transform the bay into the recreational destination we see today. At the time, the importance of wetlands to our coastal communities wasn’t well understood. Now we know better,” says Schwartz. “In 1994, the Mission Bay Park Master Plan was updated to prioritize preserving and restoring nature. This project is guided by that document and community input.
Latest posts by Frank Gormlie (see all)
- Mayor’s Office Confirms Sale of Liberty Station Leases by McMillin – But Questions Remain - December 5, 2018
- Why Would Anyone Want to Flee Beautiful Honduras? - November 29, 2018
- A Progressive Looks at the San Diego Mid-Terms – OB Rag Interview With Doug Porter - November 21, 2018
Joi Scientific sent a letter of intent to Agess, Inc to restore the largest lake in California called the Salton Sea. By importing gravity fed Seawater from Baja Mexico first into the giant dry lake bed called the Laguna Salada in Mexico and then further downhill 223 feet below sea level is the 378 square mile lake called the Salton Sea. During the journey through the barren desert it is estimated that 200,000 acres of barren desert lands can be converted into salt water marshes to grow Baja Mangroves, Salicornia and a selection of 350 species of salt tolerant plants known as halophytes.
I live across the street from De Anza Cove and walk there often for exercise. It is a nice place with moderate use during the week and a lot of use on week ends and holidays, especially families with children. A lot of organizations hold functions there through out the year, week ends and week days so this place is getting used a fair amount right now. I’m not sure what the city intends but anything that would cause it to be used less by families would seem just plain stupid. It is very family friendly with a life guard station and the kids can get in the water with no waves or rip tides so the youngsters just love it. There’s a launch ramp for boaters too that is used pretty much every day. It is a great park with easy access and parking and anything that would change that had better be adding something to the public to enjoy more, not less. It is a nice public space that anyone can enjoy and why we preserve the coast for everyone to use. Don’t blow it guys.
Thinking that a few acres of marsh land will reduce ocean level rise is ludicrous. There is, however, a realistic way to remove 2.14 million acre feet of water a year from the worlds oceans annually.
It’s right in our backyard.
Every year for 113 years the Salton Sea has evaporated 1.30 million acre feet of water into the atmosphere.
There once was a similar lake to the south called Laguna Salada that evaporated another 0.84 acre feet of water a year. This water was returned to the clouds, then returned to the earth as fresh rain.
The Salton Sea is currently drying up leaving a dust bowl that will blow particulate mater in all directions including to San Diego when Santa Ana winds blow.
However, sixty miles of gravity fed sea level canals, and five miles of excavation through a hill could supply endless Sea of Cortez waters to Laguna Salada and the Salton Sea in controlled quantities 24/7/365.
This would reduce ocean levels, eliminate dust, create estuaries for migrating birds, generate hydro-power, and even cool the deserts as 2.14 million acre feet of water evaporate from the seas.
Here’s a couple FB pages on the possibilities:
https://www.facebook.com/CahuillaSea/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1619375021661654/
This is fascinating information on the Salton Sea. I had no idea of its significance as an environmental plus.
It is a wonderful place for families. I agree. It is used amply and easily, especially given the grueling traffic and parking that is prohibitive most summer days.
Please just leave it alone. It is fine the way it is.
Some clarifications for readers:
1) The new restaurant at the Visitor’s Center (not a cluster of restaurants) is well outside of the De Anza and ReWild Mission Bay planning areas and is not included in either plan; and
2) Neither Campland nor the Northern Wildlife Preserve/Kendall-Frost Reserve are part of the De Anza planning process, which is focused exclusively on the area east of Rose Creek. The ReWild MB planning area overlaps part of the De Anza planning area, east of Rose Creek and south of North Mission Bay Drive.
Most importantly for readers who have misunderstood the intent of the ReWild plan, it cannot – and is not intended to – change the amount of sea level rise. The expanded wetland is to ensure that this essential natural resource will not completely disappear by 2100 as sea levels rise.
The Mission Bay Park Master Plan strongly recommends that the Campland use be relocated in Mission Bay Park and the current leasehold be reconfigured into the wetland it once was. The Campland lease expires this year, in the fall of 2017, but the City has granted a lease extension of several years so that the De Anza planning process can be completed. It is expected that the RV camping use will be relocated to somewhere in the De Anza planning area.
A draft De Anza Revitalization Plan design is to be released to the public at the end of June when we will see the degree to which the De Anza plan takes into consideration both the hundreds of public comments on the 3 draft De Anza designs released in 2016 and the wetland recommendations of the ReWild proposals.
Re: “The expanded wetland is to ensure that this essential natural resource will not completely disappear by 2100 as sea levels rise.” So we’re tearing out all the valuable improvements and camping opportunities at Campland in anticipation of inundation of much of the coastal United States, eighty years from now? I understand global sea rise, and believe it’s true, but this seems a bit myopic. If the seas are rising, vast portions of coastline will be reclaimed by nature including many blocks of MB and PB, as we humans desperately build walls to try to protect ocean front properties. Wouldn’t it be better to provide educational opportunities for campers about wetlands, sea rise, and ways to slow/stop it?
Judy, “cluster” was used by David Garrick of the U-T in his Nov 26, 2016 article: “Each of the proposals for the newly available 120 acres envisions playing fields, campgrounds, large open spaces for festivals, water sports areas, children’s playgrounds and a restaurant cluster.”
“Cluster” was also used to describe the restaurants in our BreakingNews source.
Frank, my comment was specific to your inclusion of the Visitor Information Center, in your article, as part of the De Anza planning process. My comment was that the Visitor Center is not a part of the De Anza Revitalization Plan Process and it will not be a cluster of restaurants.
In Garrick’s article, he was referring to restaurants in De Anza planning. While there are perhaps 2-3 restaurants proposed in the various draft designs, they’re not suggested as a “cluster” but in locations separate from one another. “Cluster” is an inaccurate description of what was indicated in the three draft concept designs.
Yeah, you’re right, there’s no “cluster” planned for the old Mission Bay visitors’ center. http://www.sdnews.com/view/full_story/27410119/article-Former-visitor-center-to-become-Shoreline-Mission-Bay-restaurant-and-events-center-?instance=most_popular1
But Garrick’s characterization that all 3 of the city’s proposals call for as a cluster of restaurants is what you are questioning. It depends also on how far from each other the 2-3 restaurants are; are they close enough to be a “cluster”? that’s the question; at any rate the Aububon Society questions restaurants in the prime are a dead end.
Great research, much needed. San Diego’s late 19th to mid-20th century leaders did a pretty good job of preserving and building public resources: Balboa Park, Mission Bay, Tecolote and San Clemente and other canyons, the pedestrian bridges over the smaller canyons… But look at what happened: Mission Valley. Ever since then moneymen who call themselves conversatives have converted the remaining natural expanse to money. Thanks to you, Frank, and the people who understand what San Diego’s money is up to now, we’ll at worst be a model of what not to do with a paradise.