After months of speculation over the future of the Navy Broadway Complex, September promises to be a busy and pivotal month for the controversial proposed development, Pacific Gateway.
In the latest of several incarnations, the Manchester Development Group will present their plans publicly on Sept. 9 at the Embarcadero Planning Center, 585 Harbor Drive.
Then on Sept. 16, also at the Embarcadero Planning Center, the Broadway Complex Coalition, made up largely of Citizens Coordinate for Century 3 (C3) members, will host what they’re calling “a public planning forum for public land.” The Broadway Complex Coalition has been one of the main voices opposing the project.
District 2 Councilman Kevin Faulconer has dedicated the Sept. 19 City Council meeting on the future of the Navy Broadway Complex.
“It’s going to be one of the largest developments on the waterfront,” Faulconer said. “It’s really the front porch of our city. This project will be potentially such a big one that the council hasn’t reviewed it yet, and I felt it was important that we do so. And I think with decisions as large as this, you want to make sure you’re reviewing the options, all the information is there, and people can make informed decisions.”
Finally, on Sept. 27, CCDC, which has oversight authority on the project, will hold its consistency recommendation meeting for the project, in which CCDC will address technical and environmental aspects and determination of public benefits along with architectural design.

The beginning
The current saga began late last year when, under fear of closure and relocation from the imminent BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) process, the Navy sent a request for proposals to private developers. Essentially, if the right developer were to build a new office building for the Navy Region Southwest, it could build on the adjacent land, 14.7 acres, under a long-term land lease subject to the Navy’s design and project approval. On March 31, the Navy announced that the Manchester Financial Group’s design had won, allowing the company to enter into exclusive negotiations with the Navy which must now be completed by Dec. 31. Manchester previously constructed the Grand Hyatt on Harbor Drive, along with other large-scale projects around San Diego. Doug Manchester’s track record of litigation, and of what some would call blocking off Harbor Drive, set off the most vocal of protesters upon hearing that the winning bid had gone to Manchester. And as the plan for Pacific Gateway, as the project is named, gets further modified, scrutinized and criticized by agencies and the public alike, this most polarizing of projects for San Diego’s downtown has drawn lines in the sand as the end of the year gets closer, still with no agreement yet made between Manchester and the Navy.
The crux of the contention is whether the project is appropriate for the land on which it is proposed to sit. Those at the initial unveiling saw a dazzling concept on a grand scale, with a mix of office, retail and hotels and segments of open space through which a meandering paseo passes restaurants, shops and a museum along its eight blocks. But many wondered allowed if San Diego’s waterfront was the right location for such a large-scale, high-density project, impressive though it may be, while proponents claim the project will be a wonderful signature development on downtown’s front doorstep “” San Diego Bay.

Changes
Pacific Gateway, depending upon who you believe, has undergone several design changes either out of listening to the public or for personal gain. On May 24, Manchester unveiled a new design in which buildings along Harbor Drive were enlarged and an eight-story parking garage was added at the expense of much of the open space. The new plans drew a chilly response, and vocal citizens like Peter Q. Davis, former CCDC director and port commissioner, accused the Manchester Group essentially of a bait-and-switch. June 8 saw Manchester scale back the buildings a bit and take all the parking underground, below grade, reportedly an expensive process. This final plan, submitted to CCDC on June 30, is somewhat a combination of the winning bid and the first revision that drew public ire.
Manchester Development Group’s President Perry Dealy explained the changes Pacific Gateway has gone through in a recent interview:
“The plan evolved from a combination of public hearings, community group meetings, professional organizations and groups,” Dealy said. “Urban design-wise, we wanted to continue to push the envelope and improve the urban design on the project, so we challenged our architects to continue to go through working with CCDC in trying to address the comments we heard from the community on bulk and scale and make it pedestrian-friendly. And then finally, we had to be financially viable, so the project had to be a good business investment.”
Dealy defended the changes as being “substantial” in respect to heeding the public’s suggestions. He said Manchester originally had 3.2 million square feet to develop, of which they took out 300,000 square feet out of the master plan and put it underground in parking “” a very expensive move, he said. Moving the parking underground reduced the bulk and scale.
“We had heard loud and clear that there were issues and concerns,” Dealy said.
Secondly, Dealy said the Manchester Group wanted to take some of the bulk off of Harbor Drive and relocate it to Pacific Highway. Both community groups and CCDC were concerned at the size of the buildings on Harbor Drive, so this shuffling was a concession on Manchester’s part.
Now Dealy said he’s back to what Manchester originally proposed: 5.5 acres of open space and about 2.9 million square feet above-ground, as opposed to the original 2.8 million. Dealy also cited the more distinctive architecture and layout of the open space, about which he is very enthusiastic.
Opponents cite the lack of open space, or views of the bay from downtown, or from inside the project, for that matter. Manchester’s plan, however, takes this into account as Dealy offers his explanation for the design.
“When you design these urban paseos (plazas) in an eight-block project, you don’t want to make it predictable, so you want to be able to meander. You don’t want to just see this runway, it’s so predictable. You want to be able to know where you’re going and then meander through that. That’s considered good urban design.”

Walling off the waterfront?
If developing a significant portion of the 14 acres for private use has angered opponents of the project, it’s what they refer to as “walling off the waterfront” that draws most of their ire. In other words, blocking the view to San Diego Bay has been done along Harbor Drive and is now a possibility for the North Embarcadero area. While the land may be taken up by the wealthy and powerful, they allege, taking away views from the public is too much.
“When you’re actually at ground level and you’re walking, the farther back you get, unless you start going up in elevation from the water, you can’t really see the water,” Dealy said. “When people say you’re blocking off the bay, they really say you’re just blocking off your views. And that’s a legitimate concern … but at any rate I think we do open up. E, F and G streets [were] specifically designed in the development agreement to create the view corridors from the upland.”

The Navy building
The new building Manchester plans to build for the Navy has drawn attention as well. From the conflicting statements on its proposed size to its large setback requirements, to the mystery surrounding its cost.
“Why does the Navy need a thousand dollars a square foot [as was previously reported]?” said Peter Q. Davis. “Because it is either a palatial mansion which certainly public agencies don’t need or it’s a bomb shelter design which should not be in the downtown area. If they really are that concerned, they should move it to a different area.”
“Some people have said that because the Navy is going there, the density is so high “” which is totally wrong,” countered Dealy. “If the Navy didn’t go there, we’d put a spec office building there, and actually you’d have less setback and less amenities because the advantage of the Navy going there is you get more setback and more green space around the building [per Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms security regulations].”
Currently, Manchester is still in talks with the Navy, finalizing costs and terms of the deal, so Dealy couldn’t give full disclosure on the numbers surrounding the negotiations with the Navy. According to Dealy, though, it will be a state-of-the-art, 21st-century, class A office building, which he is quick to point out will be the working home of high-paying, private contractors who “will spend money downtown while they’re working here, and they’re good citizens of downtown. And I think it’s been the goal and objective from the downtown business groups and communities to keep government downtown.”

Opposition
“In downtowns, very rarely do you get eight blocks to master plan at the same time.,” Dealy said, but the plan isn’t yet a done deal, and opposition groups are formulating ways to guarantee that these eight blocks along the waterfront should be better put to use as they would like “” public open space being a popular idea. And they have a strategy as to how they will go about it.
First, the Broadway Complex Coalition, plans to lobby those in power to rescind the 1992 Development Agreement, which stipulated the need for development along the waterfront and established the parameters for doing so.
“[City Council] can place a moratorium on the property while they go back and re-plan the area to bring it up to 2006 and future standards and meet future needs,” said Diane Coombs, vice president of C3. “We’ll also be asking that they rescind their agreement with the Navy for the current plan.”
The group reasons that if it can persuade politicians of the need to oppose Pacific Gateway, changes can be made quickly. Indeed, Coombs pointed to the quick defense of the Mt. Soledad cross in La Jolla as an example of swift politics in action.
Lastly, the group encourages a second look at the BRAC process. To them, it’s possible that selling off the property may open a door to do with the 14 acres what they would prefer.
However, under the BRAC process, the Navy would be required to offer the property first to other agencies within the Department of Defense, then to other federal agencies. In short, City Hall is at the back of the line should the space become vacated. BRAC could very well pave the way for a helicopter pad, for example.
Adding to the controversy is Manchester’s plan to add hotel condos into the mix of office and retail. Condominiums are not allowed in tidelands areas such as the Embarcadero, yet hotels are, and opponents allege this is a way to bypass that.
“Condos are not allowed within the tidelands, and for good reason,” Davis said, “because the idea is that tidelands belong to all of us and when you start putting residential units down there they start putting up fences and private property.”

Transparency
“The problem with this process is that it’s been very secretive,” Davis said. “Those kept in the dark assume the worst, and I think when it comes to San Diego politics, that’s a pretty natural response.”
But Dealy doesn’t see it that way.
“When people are saying, ‘you’re not doing the right thing for the city,’ or ‘you’re not doing the right thing for that area,’ I think that’s unfair and I think it’s an emotional response,” Dealy said. “And it’s unfortunate, because we can’t do anything more! And all that’s not secret. People have to know we’ve just spent tens of millions of dollars to put that parking underground.”
Dealy further defended the process that opponents have labeled as secretive.
“We’re still in negotiations,” Dealy said. “We haven’t finalized this deal, so that part of it is private. But what we’ve done since we’ve gone public March 31, this couldn’t be more public. We’ve gone out to all these meetings, all these organizations and sent out numerous packages to anybody who calls up that wants to see the project. We are as open-book as any project I’ve ever worked on.”
But time is winding down for Manchester to come to agreement with the Navy, though only these two groups know how close they are. When asked when he expects to complete the financial negotiations, Dealy simply said, with a straight face, “By the end of the year.”