By Gary Wonacott
The time has com for the District 1 office to initiate a formal review by the Planning Department to evaluate the feasibility and benefits of consolidating the Mission Beach and Pacific Beach Community Planning Areas (CPA).
The current boundaries— drawn more than half a century ago— no longer reflect the realities of how our communities function, nor do they support the level of representation and planning capacity required to address today’s coastal challenges. Reunification is not simply an administrative adjustment; it is a necessary modernization that would restore political balance, strengthen resident voices, and finally give Mission Beach a fair opportunity to secure long?overdue infrastructure investment.
Mission Beach was originally part of the Pacific Beach CPA before being separated in the mid?20th century to provide more localized planning control. Yet the Mission Beach Precise Plan, drafted in the 1970s, identified a long list of deficiencies— aging infrastructure, visual blight, inadequate landscaping, and a lack of community amenities— that remain largely unresolved today.
Over the past two decades, the situation has only deteriorated. The seawall continues to crumble along its entire length. Alleys and utilities lag behind modern standards. In spite of many “Get it Done Requests,” court lamp lights remain burnt out for months at a time. Vehicles fail to stop at stop signs and speed down Mission Blvd with impunity.
Meanwhile, the resident population has steadily declined as whole?home short?term rentals now occupy an estimated 30–40 percent of Mission Beach housing. Many of these whole home short term rentals are vacant much of the winter months, increasing the financial challenge for local small businesses. This demographic shift has eroded the community’s political influence and weakened its ability to compete for City resources. Governance challenges within the Town Council and Planning Group have further limited Mission Beach’s ability to advocate effectively for its needs.
Compounding these structural weaknesses is the simple fact that Mission Beach and Pacific Beach residents already share many of the same priorities for their communities. Both strongly support maintaining the coastal height limit, and both are deeply concerned about the unchecked proliferation of ADUs that threaten neighborhood character, strain infrastructure, and undermine coastal planning goals. These shared values underscore the artificial nature of the current CPA divide. The issues that matter most to residents—coastal protection, mobility, land?use compatibility, and neighborhood livability—do not stop at the boundary between the two communities. Our planning structure should reflect that reality.
Today, Mission Beach carries the administrative responsibilities of a standalone CPA without the population base, political leverage, or institutional capacity required to influence City priorities. The result is a planning framework that no longer serves the community’s long?term interests. Reuniting Mission Beach with Pacific Beach would correct this imbalance. A combined CPA would significantly increase the resident population represented under a single planning body, diversifying community voices and reducing the disproportionate influence of non?resident STR operators. It would also allow Mission Beach to retire its outdated Precise Plan and integrate into the more modern Pacific Beach Community Plan, creating a unified approach to zoning, mobility, coastal resilience, and land?use planning across the shared coastline.
A unified CPA would also carry far greater political weight in advocating for capital improvements. Mission Beach urgently needs seawall reconstruction, alley rehabilitation, stormwater upgrades, and enhanced coastal?protection measures. These projects have been repeatedly deferred, in part because Mission Beach lacks the political strength to compete for City resources. Consolidation would align both communities with the City’s General Plan goals related to coastal resilience, mobility, sustainability, and efficient land?use planning, enabling a coordinated and more forceful approach to shared challenges.
For these reasons, it would seem to make a lot of sense for the District 1 Council Office to direct the Planning Department to evaluate the feasibility, benefits, and administrative requirements of consolidating the Mission Beach and Pacific Beach CPAs. It would also be prudent for the staff to engage both Planning Groups to assess representation models, boundary adjustments, and community impacts; that an informational hearing be scheduled at the Planning Commission once the study is complete; and that the City facilitate community outreach to ensure residents understand the purpose and benefits of consolidation.
Mission Beach’s current planning structure has proven to no longer be viable. Reunification with Pacific Beach is the most practical and forward?looking solution available—one that restores meaningful representation, strengthens planning outcomes, and positions both communities to confront shared coastal challenges with unity and effectiveness. District 1 leadership is essential to initiating this long?overdue modernization and ensuring that Mission Beach finally receives the planning support and infrastructure investment it has been denied for far too long.
I’m confused. Wouldn’t it be district two? And can anyone on the city council direct city staff? I thought that was the job of our “strong” mayor.