Reaction Is Split on 2 Plans for Developing Mission Bay

Aproposal to build a hotel on Fiesta Island and transform the northeast corner of San Diego’s Mission Bay Regional Park into an expanded natural habitat triggered mixed reactions this week from environmentalists and developers.

A team of private consultants unveiled two versions of the park’s preliminary land- and water-use plan at a meeting late Tuesday night of the Mission Bay Planners, a 25-member board established to oversee the completion of the park’s master plan updating.

The city of San Diego this year embarked on an ambitious effort to update Mission Bay’s blueprint to guide the park’s evolution into the 21st Century.

To improve the quality of Mission Bay’s water, plans call for the expansion of marshlands at the foot of Rose Creek and the addition of three breaks, two near Fiesta Island and one near De Anza Cove, to improve the bay’s natural flushing.

Also proposed is the commercial development of South Shores to include specialty shops and restaurants, along with the redevelopment of Marina Village and Quivira Basin into resort areas.

A 15,000-seat amphitheater on Fiesta Island has been suggested, and 100 more acres of parkland would be created to meet demands on the park, in part because San Diego County’s population is expected to nearly double by the year 2010.

Access would also be increased by establishing continuous, but separate, bike and pedestrian pathways throughout the park. Creation of an interchange ramp that would run east and west between Interstate 5 and Interstate 8 is also being examined.

Although the two proposals share many ideas, they possess fundamental differences: the “Fragmented Park” concept scatters commercial development, wildlife habitats and regional park use throughout the bay, while the “Parks Within a Park” concept concentrates those uses in distinct areas.

Favored by the consultants, the latter proposal has made both friends and foes.

“I’m pleased with what they’re starting. . . . I think it’s a pleasant surprise,” said Joy Zedler, director of the Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory at San Diego State University. “But naturally I’d like to see even more wetlands restored.”

Others favor the more traditional approach outlined in the “Fragmented Park” proposal, which they say meets public desires expressed in the planning process.

“I’m very disappointed that the consultant would take a plan arrived at by the community with consensus and label it as a ‘fragmented’ plan,” Mike Gelfand, president of De Anza Group, Inc., said. “To label it as fragmented and put that negative connotation on it . . . I think is inappropriate.”

At stake for Gelfand is the fate of the 158 acres his company now leases for its camp and mobile-home park and the location of a hotel De Anza officials may choose to pursue later.

But park consultants, who designed the set of preliminary plans, said they did not ignore public comments.

“Both plans include the ideas that were raised by the public. . .It was our job to take those ideas that were generated by the public and make them into a whole plan,” said Paul Rookwood, a designer with Wallace Roberts & Todd, the consulting firm hired by the city to update the park’s master plan.

“It’s our belief the ‘Parks Within a Park’ plan takes the essence of the ideas the public was asking for. . . and creates the best possible experience,” Rookwood said. “So, instead of having those ideas fragmented throughout the park in little bits and pieces,. . . we’re suggesting . . .we create areas in the park where you can immerse yourself in the experience of one or another kind of landscape.”

Mission Bay Planner Chairman Steve Alexander said the next month will be spent ironing out the sources of controversy, like the proposal to concentrate natural habitats throughout De Anza Cove. “I think it’s a whole new concept to consider expanding the marsh area, and I think it takes into account the vision for a type of recreation that heretofore has been undiscussed in most parks,” Alexander said. “But, whether it’s an economically feasible plan . . .remains to be seen.”

The next step in planning will take place May 5, when Rookwood and his associates present the Mission Bay Planners with more definitive economic plans based on the two proposals.

The public will have a chance to comment at that time. A full public hearing on the plans is also scheduled for June.