Precise Plan Process for Fiesta Island (Mission Bay Park)

Is it true the mayor is planning to approve a significantly different Precise Plan than what is on the books in the Mission Bay Master Plan without proposing to go to the City Council with amendments? I’ve sent emails to the consultants with some questions about the process. Hopefully I’ll hear back.

There is a website on the process though it’s not the easiest site to work from with lots of maps that are difficult to print out.

The latest proposed alternative is called 4g.

The sections in the Mission Bay Master Plan related to Fiesta Island are mercifully short and easy to review, though I also didn’t find them online. The site currently seems to cherry pick from the Plan, but doesn’t provide all the sections related to Fiesta Island. (hint to website folks)

From my copy of the Mission Bay Master Plan:

Fiesta Island should remain essentially open yet supportive of a diversity of regional-service public and low-key, for-profit recreation and natural enhancement functions.


As an open landscape, Fiesta Island should be the place where City residents and visitors alike find the ultimate refuge from urban congestion, noise and visual clutter.

Then it goes on to talk about highly developed parkland in the south to more natural and open areas to the north and there are lots of specifics. Like most plans around here, it tends to be a kitchen sink. But now is the time when the space is being divvied up for real.

Since the 1994 Plan was last updated, parts of Fiesta Island was designated off-leash for dogs, yet there is no mention of dog-related parks in the Master Plan. And lots of people take their dogs for exactly “the ultimate refuge from urban congestion, noise and visual


F.I.D.O. (Fiesta Island Dog Owners … gotta love the name!) has gotten their use on the map, but is still concerned about overdevelopment of the Island.

I’m concerned that there’s too much turf being proposed. It costs money and maintenance and completely would change the character of the place. While they’re revisiting other recommendations in the Plan, did they discuss eliminating all new turf and providing only basic sand picnicing? These areas are also designated for special events parking, so it doesn’t seem to make sense to go to the trouble to turf them.

If they can change all the aspects they are looking to change, it seems to me they should consider some of the overarching language related to Fiesta Island’s current kinda funky sense of place (an open landscape/ultimate refuge), and keep the turf off the Island.

Fox Canyon Neighborhood ParkThe state of California turned down the city’s request to move the Urban Parks grant to a new location on Wightman Street where yet another lawsuit compelled the city to purchase property due to flooding.

OK, I get to say “I told you so.” I went to the hearing and pointed out that the city had not complied with the state grant contract terms for moving the site. I was ignored and now the state tells them the same thing, only increasing delays.

The mayor has staff working to resubmit a proposal to move the grant rather than build the park as the grant was promised. Stay tuned.

Hydrology studies for the Wightman site appear to show that the sity isn’t proposing to adequately address under-sized sewage and stormwater issues downstream.

The community deserves to get BOTH park sites. This could happen if the city would simply implement the grant as promised and do a new grant for the new site.


Leave a comment

We expect all commenters to be constructive and civil. We reserve the right to delete comments without explanation. You are welcome to flag comments to us. You are welcome to submit an opinion piece for our editors to review.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.