Public Has Until August 24 to Give Feedback to Port
By City News Service / 7SanDiego / July 10-13, 2026
The comment period for a proposed redevelopment of East Harbor Island for a Topgolf and Waterfront Park Project is open, Port of San Diego officials announced Friday.
The port published a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project, with the public comment period open through Aug. 24.
The project, if approved, would entail a 10.1-acre public waterfront park with a promenade, plaza areas, playgrounds, restrooms and public art. It also includes a 16.5-acre section designated as an entertainment district, with 9.8 of those acres set aside for the popular arcade/ driving range company Topgolf. The remainder is slated as “eatertainment” concepts, to be determined by a competitive public solicitation process.
Additionally, the proposal calls for realignment of Liberator Way with new public parking, sidewalks, planting buffers and reconfiguration of adjacent intersections.
No project has yet been approved, and comments collected on the draft EIR will be used to formulate a final EIR. According to a port statement, the EIR and a Port Master Plan Amendment — if the port’s master plan isn’t certified — will likely be brought before the Board of Port Commissioners in late 2026.
According to the port, for the Topgolf portion, staff will bring an option to lease agreement to the board as well.
The site for the project is adjacent to Harbor Police Headquarters and across from the airport. It is currently used for off-airport surface parking, rental car facility operations and temporary airport construction support operations.
The draft EIR is available for public review online here or in person at the Port of San Diego’s Office of the District Clerk, 3165 Pacific Highway. The San Diego Public Library’s Central branch, 330 Park Blvd., will also have copies of the draft EIR.
How can you leave a public comment on this project?
Comments can be emailed to mhamilton@portofsandiego.org or mailed to:
Port of San Diego
Attn: Megan Hamilton, Development Services Department
3165 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92101-1128
A tourist driven spot adjacent to the airport complete with all the high price amenities. San Diegans are getting squeezed out of their own town. Elo may want discounts for the poor.
Get ready for Buck-a-Minute Golf if this goes through. More traffic at the airport. More construction delays. Dirt, dust, debris.
Must there be development everywhere? Every single square foot of the city–more concrete.
Build. Build. Build. Build. Corporate build-out everywhere.
We only have Harbor Dr to access this area.
Well, at least they’re not planning a data center!
Terrible use of precious Bay Front property. Unless I am missing something, imagine the esthetics of the huge wire screen that they will have to install!
“9.8 of those acres set aside for the popular arcade/ driving range company Topgolf.” This is a terrible proposed use of public tidelands. If you agree that an “entertainment center” and driving range surrounded in part by a 170
foot high protective netting to trap wayward golf balls are inappropriate uses of this valuable public space, please send a comment to the Port District as noted in the post.
This seems like a great addition to the current eye-soar at the current location. Why not improve the area, bring in tourist dollars and provide construction and long term jobs to San Diegans. It is literally a car storage lot. Maybe it would get the Port Authority moving to finally improving the embaradero … which they have been talking about since I’ve been in San Diego … almost 40 years! The embaradero needs a serious makeover, Sport Arena, SeaPort Village, the Convention Center needs to be expanded. Why can’t we get anything done in San Diego? The Chargers left becasue we couldn’t get a stadium built in the blighted area south east of Petco … what is there now? Nothing but parking lots and homeless people!
I agree with San Diego CoastKeeper: (See EIR, pp. 45, 46) TopGolf is inappropriate.
Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities [. . .] shall be protected
for such uses. Cal. Coastal Act § 30220;
· All port-related developments shall give highest priority to the use of existing land
space within harbors for port purposes, as well as, provide for other beneficial uses
consistent with the public trust, including, but not limited to, recreation and wildlife
habitat uses, to the extent feasible. Cal. Coastal Act § 30708;
· Scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a
resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to
protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the
alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of
surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in
visually degraded areas.” Cal. Coastal Act § 30251.
These guiding principles strongly suggest that the Project is inappropriate for its proposed
location. A golf driving range is neither coastal-dependent or oriented, serves no relevant port purposes, and would adversely impact scenic coastal views and habitats. The Project would effectively privatize ten acres of prime coastal tidelands ….”
Property uses are strictly governed by the California Tidelands Trust to ensure public benefit, prioritizing commercial maritime, recreation, hospitality, and environmental conservation. If it passes, I believe it will be a failure.
The Port is a gross entity. Their #1 goal is $$$.
Piggybacking on Cindi’s post, I sent the following comment to the Port, You can email your comments about Topgolf to: mhamilton@portofsandiego.org
“I share the concerns of many San Diegans about this proposed project. I think TopGolf is an inappropriate use, because, as one critic notes:
“Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities [. . .] shall be protected for such uses. Cal. Coastal Act § 30220;
· All port-related developments shall give highest priority to the use of existing land space within harbors for port purposes, as well as, provide for other beneficial uses consistent with the public trust, including, but not limited to, recreation and wildlife habitat uses, to the extent feasible. Cal. Coastal Act § 30708;
· Scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.” Cal. Coastal Act § 30251.
These guiding principles strongly suggest that the Project is inappropriate for its proposed location. A golf driving range is neither coastal-dependent or oriented, serves no relevant port purposes, and would adversely impact scenic coastal views and habitats. The Project would effectively privatize ten acres of prime coastal tidelands ….”
Thank you for including this comment in the public record.”
From public financial sources: The overall Topgolf Callaway Brands business faced challenges including declining same-venue trends in prior periods, tariff impacts, impairments, and high venue-related costs/leases/debt.
It doesn’t make business sense for the Port to lease this valuable land to a one trick pony, Topgolf, which is owned by a private equity firm and whose future is in dispute. What if Topgolf goes out of business, who gets to clean up all of those telephone poles?
And Topgolf facilities are downright ugly, especially on that gem we all own called San Diego Bay.