Seaport Village Plan

On Jan. 24, the San Diego Unified Port District commissioners conceptually approved the proposed Seaport Village expansion. The expansion plans contain a massive parking structure, 5 stories high and 600 feet long, right on our harbor front. While the project proponents have included some landscaping, it’s simply not enough to offset the bulk and mass of such a building constructed entirely above ground.

As the councilman for the district containing Seaport Village, I requested a 60-day continuance from the port commissioners to allow the City Council time to review the proposed expansion plans. The council has never had the opportunity to formally review those plans. Regrettably, that request was denied. While I’m not opposed to the Seaport Village project in general, I’m absolutely convinced that the impact of that garage could have been lessened to a far greater degree than proposed.

We don’t want a lifeless, empty waterfront, but whatever we do allow must be special. It must preserve views of the bay, enhance open space, create a pedestrian atmosphere and add to the overall aesthetic quality of the waterfront.

The developers of Seaport Village, Lee Stein and Morris Taubman, are fine individuals trying to expand their project in a generally sensitive manner. They’ve never said they couldn’t put parking underground, only that it didn’t make economic sense. Yet, the very next project considered by the port board that day, the Kona Kai Club expansion, proposes complete underground parking right on the bay. Other recent examples of waterfront underground parking include the new San Diego Convention Center, Le Meridien Hotel in Coronado and the Promenade shopping center in Pacific Beach.

To preserve the sanctity of the waterfront, underground parking is now being required everywhere but at Seaport Village. The only rationale for Seaport Village to be excluded appears to be the added cost. The Port District holds the keys to solving the cost dilemma. What I propose is for the port to renegotiate Seaport Village’s lease if necessary to justify the underground parking. That kind of compromise is exactly what the port should do with all properties it manages--seek utilization that maximizes public benefit as well as financial return.

An extra 60 days to scrutinize a project isn’t much when we’re talking about the potential definition of the waterfront for 60 years.

RON ROBERTS

San Diego City Council member