Dennis Davidson and his wife, Marie, have lived blocks from San Diego’s Pond 20 for two decades.
“I said: ‘It sounds to me like they’ve got a set up and they’re trying to guide us to that set up,” he said a week after a public meeting Dec. 4 in Otay Mesa.
“We said to the guy from the Port during the meeting: ‘Wouldn’t it be easier if you showed us what you have and we tell you if we like it?’ He said” ‘We don’t have any plans yet’ and I said: ‘I worked for the government for 30 odd years. Don’t tell me you don’t have anything.’”
Said Davidson: “They had an idea and were trying to guide people to that idea.”
For the better part of the past year, the Port of San Diego has told the public that once its staff formed an opinion on how to develop 95 acres known as Pond 20, that plan would be shared with the public before a final recommendation was made to the Board of Port Commissioners.
The final step in a process outlined in an agreement between the Port and cities of San Diego and Imperial Beach never happened, and the change in course was not mentioned at a final public outreach meeting held Dec. 4.
IB Patch learned of plans to turn the majority of the land into a mitigation bank with some commercial development in November. A mitigation bank is land used to offset or mitigate the environmental impact of development projects elsewhere.
Those plans were to be discussed at the meeting last week, but staff decided that discussing particular plans before they are given to the Board of Port Commissioners would be getting “ahead of the process,” said Port spokeswoman Tanya Castaneda.
“There was internal discussion at the Port about whether we were getting ahead of the board and ahead of the process, so they decided to pull back and get more general feedback at the meeting,” she said.
Sharing recommendations with the public before the board hears the plan was agreed upon in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Port and the cities of San Diego and Imperial Beach in January. Port staff and a website devoted to Pond 20 also emphasized this process.
Meetings to gather public comment started in February.
Letters of Interest were solicited for proposals on how to develop the land this summer.
Meetings were held with the cities of Imperial Beach and San Diego this fall. Port staff then drafted its recommendation for how the land on the border of Imperial Beach should be used.
“This was a public outreach meeting that we’re not mandated to do. We did them because we wanted to do them. They’re not part of CEQA or anything. It’s not state law,” Castaneda said.
The Port is still committed to the public playing a role in deciding what happens to Pond 20, she said.
Opinions offered at the Dec. 4 meeting will go toward deciding how the land is used in the future.
The best place for public comment on use of the land may be in front of the Port Commission when staff makes a formal recommendation next year, she said.
“Let’s say that they did go ahead with that, floating a recommendation [at the meeting],” Castaneda said. “Members of the public may have thought: ‘Well I made my public comment, but really, the place for them to comment is at the [board] meeting.’”
Comments made at input meetings were recorded, but comments made at the board meeting will go into the meeting minutes, a public document, Castaneda said.
Deborah Cook of Imperial Beach was one of roughly 20 members of the public who attended the meeting last Tuesday. The other half of the room was people with an interest to develop the land or Port of San Diego staff.
Cook said Imperial Beach and the South Bay have already given up enough land so other people can benefit from business development. An environmental element can be a part of what is built there, but she wants to see part of the land used for businesses like Pier 39 in San Francisco.
“My personal opinion is, just living in the South Bay, we’ve already given up a lot to nature and the birds,” Cook said. “I think it’s time for us to have something down here. We don’t have any businesses. Why do you want to come to Imperial Beach? Why? What’s the big draw here?”
Imperial Beach is a nice place to live and worth visiting, but this corner of San Diego Bay needs to attract more than bird watchers, Cook said.
“I think we’re too landlocked by all this environmental stuff already,” she said. “Imperial Beach has nothing.”
When the Port bought 836 acres of land from the Western Salt Co. in 1998 in south San Diego Bay, 722 acres was handed to the state to offset the environmental impact of building Terminal 2 at San Diego International Airport.
Pond 20 was then set aside for future development.
Any development that takes place in the area must take into account protected wetlands in the area, said Michelle White with the Port.
“I don’t think there’s anything really committing us to development,” White said. In the case of Pond 20, a mitigation bank may be considered development, she said.
Among Letters of Interest sent to the Port this summer were ideas to build an Irish sports field or dinner theater, but the majority of proposals recommended a mitigation bank.
If people like the mitigation bank option, that’s OK, White said.
“If people feel there’s already enough mitigation in the South Bay, that’s OK too. We just want the opinions,” she said at last week’s meeting.
The Port has already committed about $300,000 to make short-term aesthetic improvements to Pond 20, said White, the Port’s environmental policy manager.
Juliane Wright lives in apartments on the San Diego side of 13th Street and said she would like to see Pond 20 become some kind of environmental development so it can be tied in with nearby preserved land like the Otay Valley Regional Park, San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge and Tijuana Estuary.
“I personally like the idea of tying those areas together,” she said. “I think we’ve already started something down here in IB in terms of making it an ecotourism area and I think this fills in the blanks a little bit.”
“The reason why I like this one is because Dr. Mike McCoy backs it up,” she said about a mitigation bank proposal presented by the Mitigation Stakeholder Team.
That particular project is supported by stakeholder team members WiLDCOAST, the Environmental Health Coalition, Hornblower Cruises and Events, BAE Systems and the San Diego Port Tenants Association, Sunroad Enterprises and Southwest Wetland Interpretive Association.
I know you won't listen. You want to mke money on Pond 20 development. Qiet people want restoration. We represent them.
First, let me tell you who I am --- my family has lived directly across the street from Pond 20 since 1963 --- at the corner of 14th & Donax --- so Pond 20 is literally at my Front Porch --- and since I am still in the house to this day I believe this gives me a vested interest in what happens We do not need any commercial development there --- there are plenty of unused parcels that are capable of handling whatever project someone has in mind What is needed here is community accessible open space area --- one that is designed for family use, for recreational use, and even ecological use Among other uses the area would be suitable as an access point for San Diego Bay (kayaks, paddle boats, etc), an area for family gatherings, and as an educational area for the schools (not unlike the Interpretive Center in CV) (To be continued in another post --- the Patch has a 1500 character limit --- makes it very difficult to expand upon a point) ...
One thing you need to understand --- beyond my personal dislike of any commercial development there is the logistics of access, noise, infrastructure But most important is the land itself --- if you can call it land --- as you should know the areas where tides naturally fill and empty there is nothing more than a crust of land --- under which is a slurry of muck --- and to build anything heavy requires a lot more than fill dirt --- pilings planted deep into bedrock to halt sinking, a substrate layer to prevent seepage to the top, and constant refilling and resurfacing to level out the outer areas This is plain old Engineering --- not a political game --- not a nefarious agenda --- just reality
Ask the contractor who just did the work on Palm about the seepage they encountered ...
Are you a Benham from Georgia Street ???
Oh, the reason I ask about who you were --- it makes the following question understandable to you --- and perhaps will let you see my point better Wouldn't it be nice if the field and seasonal ponds were still across from your family home ??? Wouldn't it be nice to go there and see the pollywogs, tarantulas, scorpions, horned toads, etc ??? Once you pave it over it is gone forever ... Maybe this time we can get it right --- give the area an economic boost without *paving over paradise* --- and without the need to *put up a fence to keep me out or to keep Mother Nature in* ...
Which brings us back to another reason why development of Pond 20 is going to be difficult --- with so many **existing opportunities** along the business corridor how does putting another *doomed to failure* venture make any sense ???
Please buy the 9th and Palm parcel. Looks like Fresh and Easy is pulling out. You can have all the donkeys and cameras that you want there, and you won't have to kill creatures to build.
You are promoting a private business venture, that if successful, stands to make you money --- so trying to make it seem like the development of Pond 20 is our *civic duty* is understandable --- and I must admit it is rather clever Just curious --- are you letting anyone know that whatever project is ultimately chosen will be funded by taxpayer dollars ??? It might make a difference in how they feel ...
The PCH Dinner Show would not be paid for by tax dollars, it would be paid for by private investors. And like the good old American free enterprise, the profits would go to the investors. I don't know how the investor profile would like at this point in time, but it could range from one big investor, to a cloudfunding type investment. For example if 10,000 investors were raised in the IB/Nestor are then all of the profits would come back into the area. Remember, besides profits, the PCH Dinner Show would employ a lot of people and contribute heavily to the economy and volunteer base of the local community. The Land Banking option would do the exact opposite. All of the immediate and long term costs would be strapped on the taxpayers backs. Imagine that, we give the land up so that richer cities prosper from their development, we get lock out, and on top of it all, we pay for it. Yuk.
Also, how much are you paying towards infrastructure improvements ??? Lastly --- assuming you get your proposal passed who is going to be responsible for liability insurance, cleanup, ADA upgrades, etc ???
First, the Port District leases land, that's how they make money. They typically do not sell. By leasing the land, and getting a share of the revenues generated, they get recurring revenue and make much more money over time. The Port would probably only “sell” the land if they we getting an equally desirable lease/revenue contract somewhere else -- and that is exactly what Land Banking does -- and for Pond 20 land banking gives IB/Nestor the short end of the stick. You raise a great question, who is getting the money and titles for all the Land Banking in South Bay? The TJRiver Valley is getting chunked away to “outside interests” more than the public knows. I don’t think it’s the “tax payers”. The Port District owns Pond 20, so if it sold it they would get the money (I don’t know if or how they pay taxes?). Who would get the title for Pond 20? Regarding the other questions, they are expenses that are all part of the business plan. I understand your sensitivity about your “backyard” and that the PCH Dinner Show is grandiose, but quite frankly, you come off too much as a defeatist (I have enjoyed our discussion). We need to set the groundwork for the future generations to create new means of generating wealth. A clever tourist trap is a smart thing, bringing in clientele to the core of our City, remote from our residentially oriented beach. Could you imagine the economies Paris and Rome without tourism?
1.SeaCoast Inn. We bought the land from Pacifica for about $6.5million then leased it back to them for $1 per year for 50 years. Pacifica bought the land/hotel out of bankruptcy a couple years before for about $1.5million. I believe we paid for infrastructure and demo (need more details on what we paid). Comment: we need a new hotel, so they had us over a barrel. I wish we could have negotiated better. 2. Miracle Shopping Center, 9th and Palm. We paid about $12million for both the Shopping Center and North Island CU. We are now “selling” the property to a developer for $1 (one dollar), lock stock and barrel. We also pay for the demolition, disposal, and the cost for a fill dirt operation! This deal is in escrow and we have an option to back out. Comment: I attended every public workshop since 2004 and proposed a DowntowmIB.com concept. Not one word of public input was used. The Redevelopment Agency (RDA, now defunct) opened escrow with the developer practically the day after we closed on the purchase. I strongly believe we need a stakeholder agreement with the residential area behind the shopping center-examples were provided. They made a huge mistake tearing down NIFCU, a perfectly sound structure-I wanted to put a Pandaria/Mexican Deli there. Therefore, it seems I am the only person promoting things that do not directly cost the taxpayer.
As I see you seem to understand the taxpayer funded part of my concerns then you should understand this also Imperial Beach has had numerous chances at developing open space into multi-use places --- and each time they have either chosen a completely urban approach (allowing our beach to be overbuilt) or a completely preserve approach (the sloughs complete roped off) So if you have a beef with what they have done you should take it up with them (it is never too late to steer a new civic course) As for Pond 20 --- it is not in IB (thank God) --- so we actually have a chance it may be developed in a manner that looks to the long term benefit of the area --- not to the short term profit of a few --- perhaps, just perhaps, we might actually get something the public can enjoy Unlike you I was not privy to the initial idea phase of this --- which is interesting since I live directly across the street --- in fact, it wasn't until I was told of this by a friend in IB that I found out --- and it wasn't until after I asked about it at a meeting that the **true stakeholders** --- the residents of the immediate area, were given notice of proposed development --- even at this late date Seems there are some who think this is a done deal --- but I do believe we are only just beginning ...
Right now the area affords beautiful views, as mandated by the Otay/Nestor Community Plan. Please read it. It is on the Port Pond 20 site. Your concept would not only kill wildlife, it will kill the mandated open space and the view corridors. As to the mitigation bank funds, they are corporate funds from existing port tenants, who will pay to restore Pond 20. There is also grant money out there. Unfortunately for IB, they will not make any money here. They need to look elsewhere. Good luck on finding a new project. Again, buy the lot at 9th and Palm. Jacki
When the citizens of IB/Nestor are informed about the facts a majority would welcome buses directed to a world class dinner show, and recognize your traffic concerns are exaggerated. Beautiful view, no problem, we are going to improve the views, and I believe most would agree. Trying to argue a “mandated view corridor” to push your agenda would be truly laughable. So, you want to take corporate funds from existing port tenants, and you don’t think they will pass the cost to the consumer? What else could those funds be used for?Like your “Grants” this is not creating wealth, this is passing the cost to the local citizens. Jacki, you are killing the wildlife by wanting to land bank Pond 20 to allow other communities to destroy habitat. You did not answer, what is your connection to the Land Banking? Do you work, provide services, or associated with any groups that stand to profit with the land banking of Pond 20? People from “around here” want to know.
Please get informed. Read all the documents on the port's Pond 20 website. Read "California Tidelands: Lands Held in Public Trust." I do not have a nefarious motive here. I am not connected to any profit-making concerns regarding Pond 20, the port or IB. I'm just a concerned citizen who has been involved in saving other wetlands and wants to see this one preserved too. Jacki
You told us a lot about you and the people you represent: You say“Birds and buses full of tourists don't mix”. This proves that “ecotourism” is a con-job ruse and proponents of Land Banking have no interest in bringing tourists necessary to help the local economy. Regarding the snakes, etc, you say “I've seen them”. How is that you can personally see them when 99.9% of the population is fenced off from Pond 20 and not allowed access? You say “we represent them”, “involved in saving other wetlands”, and then you say you are “not connected.. regarding Pond 20”. Really? Your reference to “mandates” reeks of the undue-influence and narrow mindedness of a small group wanting to shove Land Banks down the people’s throat with the complete disregard for what is best for the community. I know the people of IB/Nestor well and proper analysis will show a majority want access and opportunity for economic growth from Pond 20. www.pchdinnershow.com is a viable option that will benefit all, including wildlife. Throwing away all options by giving it to Land Bankers is a bad thing.
Took you a while...on vacation? I just don't think it will help anyone to continue this thread. Unfortunately, you seem to want to make a personal attack on me for having different values than you. I'm on Mother Nature's side.
I am sorry you felt personally attacked. My responses were in-kind replies to your “you don’t get it ..get real .. get informed” which I feel were on the personal side and not respectful of my knowledge or values. I do not want to ply for the last word, but I do believe that your “on Mother Nature’s side” is a polarizing remark. Nobody has an exclusive relationship with Mother Nature, and I am afraid that is what the proponents of Land Banking are conveying. I am as close to Mother Nature as you or anybody else. I would like to be on the side of the Children of the South Bay, who are being deprived of access and opportunity by a very unbalanced use of the land. I do believe our dialog will help others understand the issues. My future postings will not be directed to you. You can contact me directly any time, see www.pchdinnershow.com.