Should lawmakers approve a bill that would speed up Seaport San Diego approval?

SB 675 would require a quicker review of a mega project on San Diego’s waterfront

A 2022 rendering of Seaport San Diego, as viewed looking north with a relocated Ruocco Park separating the urban beach from the observation tower and hotels in the background. (Seaport San Diego. Master Architect: CallisonRTKL Inc.)

By Phillip Molnar - The San Diego Union-Tribune

A bill making its way through the state Legislature would potentially limit the California Coastal Commission’s ability to deny or slow down the effort to remake Seaport Village.
The state Senate’s Environmental Quality Committee recently voted 8-0 to advance Senate Bill 675 to the Senate Rules Committee. It has a long path through the Legislature before passage. The Seaport San Diego development has been in the works since 2016.

The bill would require the Coastal Commission to provide feedback within 60 days on materials submitted during the preparation of the project’s environmental impact report, would tighten the agency’s approval window to a strict, 180-day period after certification of the environmental impact report, and would prevent the agency from imposing conditions that could render the project infeasible.

There has been little public opposition yet, but the commission’s Legislative Director Sarah Christie wrote in an email its biggest hurdle is incomplete application materials. She also wrote the commission could be constrained by the bill to ensure Coastal Act compliance.

Economists

David Ely, San Diego State University
YES: Speeding up the approval process for the redevelopment would allow the project to be completed in a more timely manner and lower uncertainty over the timeline. Remaking the waterfront site will create jobs and increase the attractiveness of San Diego as a destination for tourists. The sooner this can happen, the sooner the economic benefits will be realized. Concerns with components of the bill can be minimized as it moves through the legislative process.

Ray Major, economist
YES: CEQA laws have become a disaster keeping reasonable projects from moving forward and adding hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money and countless years of delays to projects. There is no accountability on the part of the California Coastal Commission and they should be abolished. Short of that, SB 675 simply requires them to be responsive to the residents and local governments trying to work through the unwieldly bureaucracy that is Sacramento.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego
YES: One of the big problems with doing business in San Diego and in California is the length of time it takes to get regulatory approvals of projects. The time indicated in the proposal (60 days for feedback on environmental impact report materials, 180 days for a decision after the report is submitted) is reasonable. If the Coastal Commission doesn’t have the resources to act in those windows, then it needs to get more, as this is hurting the state and local economies.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego
YES: Multi-use redevelopment of the area around Seaport Village could help significantly to boost downtown San Diego as a destination for tourists and conventions. But in mega projects like this, time is money. Knowing concrete parameters governing potential regulatory delays and alterations to plans can be vital for securing private financing and making the deal work. If current economic conditions would allow us to go forward with the project right now, we should capitalize on that opportunity.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego
YES: In fact, we should go further and require both the Coastal Commission and the City Council to make all decisions within 60 days of receiving submitted reports on all projects, not just Seaport Village. How will we ever get any developers to bid on major projects when they know it will take decades to get the green flag. Next, let’s accelerate NAVWAR and others.

Executives

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere
YES: Major projects like Seaport San Diego often face lengthy reviews and bureaucracy that can span decades (think Navy Broadway Complex). After nearly 10 years in development, further delays to Seaport will only postpone its potential community and economic benefits. This bill has support from key organizations including the Downtown San Diego Partnership and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. If this bill streamlines the process and cuts red tape without sacrificing oversight, lawmakers should support it.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health
YES: There are commissions in California, including the Coastal Commission, set up by the Legislature and governor that have become too powerful and restrictive. These commissions are led by appointees – not elected officials – and are therefore not subject to approval or termination by the voters. As such, their power should be highly limited. In addition, standards of performance should be established and enforced.

Phil Blair, Manpower
YES: But that does not mean important criteria that protect our environment and density standards should be waived. Fast tracking major redevelopment projects that improve the quality of life for the San Diego community do deserve special attention.

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors
YES: Why is Port property even within the purview of the Coastal Commission? I am in support of most efforts to remove the Coastal Commission from the entitlement and review process, a position consistent with Gov. Newsom’s, who put the commission to the sideline for Pacific Palisades redevelopment. It’s high time the commission was pared back to reviewing matters strictly involving coastal access, their core mandate. Everything else is redundant, costly and time consuming overreach.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates
​ YES: The bill would streamline the approval process, providing clarity for the developer and ensuring the project moves forward without unnecessary delays. While the bill could limit the ability to enforce environmental protections such as public access, coastal hazards and affordable visitor accommodations, this is a once-in-a-lifetime project for San Diego. Lawmakers should approve the bill because the quality of this economic development far exceeds the risk of any reduced environmental safeguards.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth
YES: Lawmakers should pass a measure (like SB 675) to streamline the approval process and add accountability to the redevelopment of Seaport Village. This project has languished in uncertainty for almost 10 years, deterring investment and delaying the intended economic and public benefits. This bill does not degrade the environmental review but sets concrete timelines to prevent further delays. If the Coastal Commission is committed to progress and fairness, it should embrace such deadlines and seek to finalize the plans.