Cool Heads Prevail on Mission Bay Park Committee — They Refuse Spending $600K on How to Divvy Up South Shores Before Analysis of Its History as Trash and Industrial Waste Dump

Cool heads have, for the moment at least, prevailed on the Mission Bay Park Committee. A majority of the city-backed committee has rejected spending $600,000 on an analysis of how best to divvy up the land known as South Shores between different recreational activities.

When the Committee met earlier this week on Tuesday, they voted 5 to 3 against spending “$600,000 creating a proposed map of amenities — called a general development plan by city officials — before studying which parts of South Shores are too toxic for the public to use,” as David Garrick at the San Diego U-T reported today. Garrick continued:

Committee members strongly support transforming the 100 acres of underutilized land into public amenities — but they said the city must first analyze the land’s history as a dumping site for trash and industrial waste in the 1950s. They said it makes no sense to spend $600,000 creating a proposed map of amenities — called a general development plan by city officials — before studying which parts of South Shores are too toxic for the public to use.

“People are walking around with knowledge there is toxic waste somewhere under the ground in South Shores,” said Jeff Johnson, the committee’s chair. “Before we do a GDP, we should spend money to do an objective study to find out where it is, what it is and how bad it is.”

Development of South Shores, just east of SeaWorld and just south of Fiesta Island, has been delayed for decades by concerns over its history. A study completed in 2006 found that more than 2 million tons of waste were dumped in South Shores during the years it served as a landfill, from 1952 to 1959.

In addition to residential trash, the area was used for industrial waste. When the city aggressively dredged the bay in the 1960s, the landfill was covered by layers of material that had been dredged, the study said. The study required the city to continually monitor toxins in the area at more than a dozen locations. Samples are still taken four times a year.

I’m familiar with that 2006 study because I was part of an Ocean Beach group that demanded that the city study the effects of the area from its history as a possible toxic waste dump. The Ocean Beach Grassroots Organization and a number of other environmental groups lobbied the city council so successfully that then-Councilwoman Donna Frye found $500K for such a study. Many of us sat on the oversight committee for the study.

Basically, the scientific study concluded there was no immediate danger to the public, but warned against drilling into its soil beyond a few feet, and as Garrick notes, “the study required the city to continually monitor toxins in the area at more than a dozen locations. Samples are still taken four times a year.” That’s how serious it is.

So, it’s a good thing that the people in charge of overseeing the maintenance of Mission Bay Park — the largest aquatic park on the West Coast — have slowed down those “plans to put new beaches, boat ramps and other recreational amenities on an empty stretch of Mission Bay shoreline …”

At that Tuesday meeting, Johnson, the committee chair, said that it didn’t make sense to complete a general development plan first. “Why would you do that if you might have to tear it all up and spend money to do another one?” he said, as quoted by Garrick.

Johnson said analyzing the toxic waste first would allow the city to create a general development plan “based on facts” and allow officials to avoid dangerous areas when creating a layout for South Shores.

Two parks planning officials at the Tuesday night meeting told Johnson they could not provide an explanation for why the city was moving forward with the general development plan before analyzing the toxic waste.

The committee voted 5-3 to reject the funding request. Committee members on the short end of the vote said the committee had previously approved money for the South Shores plan and that it made sense to allocate more to finish it.

Others said they’d prefer to re-allocate the $600,000 to projects that could improve water quality in Mission Bay. They suggested asking City Attorney Heather Ferbert whether that would be legal. The money comes from an $8.5 million settlement between the city and SeaWorld that was finalized in January — part of the rent SeaWorld declined to pay the city during the pandemic when the park was mostly shut down. Of that money, $5.2 million went into the Mission Bay Park Improvement Fund, which the committee oversees.

On a separate plane, and in some good news for Ocean Beach, the committee approved all other funding requests for the money:

• $3.5 million for Robb Field upgrades,
• $700,000 for upgrades at Dusty Rhodes Park and some smaller projects.

Back to South Shores, reporter Garrick revealed some background to the city’s push to develop the area.

The city began studying whether recreational amenities could be added to South Shores in the fall of 2023. The move came partly in response to pressure from recreation groups that had been shut out of plans to redevelop Fiesta Island, finalized in 2021, as well as plans to revamp the bay’s northeast corner near De Anza Cove, approved a year ago. When a group vying for space in those two areas got rejected, city officials would suggest South Shores as a possible alternative.

The Mission Bay Boat and Ski Club, which would lose the 4 acres it occupies on the bay’s northeast corner under the approved proposal for the area, has been told it will get a replacement spot in South Shores. Canoe and kayak clubs have also been mentioned as likely users at South Shores. Some of the clubs are losing space in the bay’s northeast corner, while others unsuccessfully lobbied for more space on Fiesta Island.

City officials say they’ve already spent $915,000 studying where to put amenities on South Shores. The $600,000 would have let the city complete the study and analyze whether it’s possible to expand the area by another 40 acres.

The additional land, called South Shores East, is bounded by Interstate 5, Friars Road, Pacific Highway and SeaWorld Drive. City officials said Thursday they plan to keep pursuing the general development plan but may have to abandon plans to include South Shores East. In the statement, the city said a special fund called the Sludge Mitigation Fund could be used to replace the $600,000 rejected this week. But officials said that would require approval from the state Coastal Commission.

Garrick also added:

City officials said in December they would reveal early this year two competing visions for the entire empty area that will differ on which activities would be included, how many acres each would get and where they’d be located. But those competing visions were never released. And a public workshop tentatively scheduled for February or March never happened.

At a public workshop last year, city officials listed the top options for passive and active recreational uses for South Shores. The passive options include open grass areas, habitat, nature trails, picnic space, sandy areas, enhanced shorelines and an elevated boardwalk at the water’s edge. The active options include playgrounds, outdoor fitness areas, courts for tennis, pickleball and basketball and fields for baseball, soccer and football.