By Steve Alexander / Times of San Diego / May 15, 2025
Mission Bay Park is a place where memories are made. Whether it’s a family outing, boating, camping, jogging or biking around this lush parkland and its glistening waterfront, Mission Bay is the crown jewel of San Diego’s park system.
That’s why, as former chair of the Mission Bay Park Committee and the Mission Bay Planners, I worked extensively on our goal of striking a careful balance of uses in this iconic area when the city of San Diego unanimously adopted the Mission Bay Park Master Plan in 1994.
The plan reflects what many know to be true: Mission Bay is a place where environmental stewardship and public benefit go hand-in-hand — not against one another. Even a casual read of the master plan makes clear that a balance of recreational, environmental and economic uses (i.e., revenue-generating leases) is critical to the park’s success.
Extensive public opinion research conducted at the time also confirmed that people overwhelmingly wanted Mission Bay Park to serve the region and meet the needs of all users, not a few special interests.
As the city advances its De Anza Natural Plan — the final chapter in that vision — I find myself reflecting on these guiding principles. The city’s proposal, which triples wetland acreage and relocates camping and recreational access, offers real promise.
But it’s not without risk, especially if we allow assumptions to race ahead of science and facts.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the city’s proposal to potentially dig a large channel through the existing De Anza landform to connect Rose Creek to an area designated for future public beach use.
Proponents believe this will improve tidal flow and benefit future wetlands. There is no hydrology study or water quality analysis to prove that. These studies were required before implementation of this component of the master plan. They haven’t been completed.
Serious questions are being raised — and San Diegans deserve clear answers before irreversible decisions are made.
Rose Creek is a significant source of pollution in Mission Bay. It carries urban runoffs, bacteria and silt, causing beach advisories and closures. The proposed channel would route this flow directly into the De Anza Natural Plan’s designated future public beach. No one has studied or demonstrated how this won’t degrade water quality or create health risks.
Thankfully, the Coastal Commission recently pointed out that hydrology and water quality modeling must be studied — and should have been analyzed earlier. I agree. These aren’t details to figure out later; they’re foundational to success, especially in a complex ecosystem like Mission Bay.
If a connection between Rose Creek and De Anza Cove is truly needed, alternatives must be evaluated transparently. For example, a culvert or pipeline beneath the existing landform could allow continued public access, reduce bacteria spread, and be closed during high pollution periods.
This approach avoids the enormous cost and environmental disruption of dredging large swaths of land — land that currently acts as a buffer to sea level rise and provides essential public space for recreation.
Having worked on climate adaptation and environmental funding for decades — including helping raise over $150 billion for conservation in the United States — I deeply value wetlands and their role in storm protection and carbon sequestration. But we must account for the carbon released by demolition and soil relocation and the long-term costs of maintenance.
There’s also an equity question. De Anza is one of the only places in coastal California where affordable, family-friendly camping still exists. Under the plan, RV campsites would be reduced by nearly 50%. If a new water channel or bridge makes these remaining sites.
Let’s not forget: the master plan never envisioned this level of change without first ensuring a true balance of public access. I support that vision. Let’s get the science right.
This is critical to future wetlands restoration. That’s why I urge caution, analysis, and a willingness to consider more cost-effective, environmentally sound alternatives — without sacrificing water quality or public recreation access.
Let’s do the hydrology study first. Let’s ensure it evaluates water quality, sediment transport, public health, and operations — then decide the best path forward.
The master plan was unanimously adopted by every committee, the City Council, and the Coastal Commission. That collaboration took years of public input. The community was heard then. Don’t ignore them now.
San Diegans have invested decades of passion into the future of Mission Bay. We owe it to them to lead with science — not speculation.
Steve Alexander is the former chair of the Mission Bay Park Committee and Mission Bay Park Planners.
