Senate committee advances bill to speed Coastal Commission review for Seaport San Diego project

The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee voted to pass SB 675, a district‑oriented bill aimed at encouraging early interagency coordination and time‑bounded review for projects seeking Environmental Leadership Development Project (ELDP) status, the committee chair said. The committee approved the bill as amended and referred it to the Senate Appropriations Committee; the final committee roll call was recorded 7-0.

Senator Padilla, the bill’s author, said SB 675 "seeks to apply the spirit and the standards of existing statute with regard to CEQA process, although this bill is not about CEQA process," and described the measure as focused on "collaboration, early communication, clear and consistent early timelines to encourage the success of such projects." The bill was presented as tailored to the Seaport Village redevelopment project in downtown San Diego.

Yehudi Gaffin, chief executive officer of developer 1 Highway 1, described the Seaport San Diego proposal as a comprehensive redevelopment of Seaport Village on Port tidelands into a mixed‑use destination with hotels, retail, an aquarium, a marine education center in partnership with San Diego Unified School District, and expanded public open space. Gaffin said the project area would include roughly 17 acres of public space and the overall project is "approximately 2,700,000 square feet of development." He told the committee the project anticipates more than 25,000 full‑time construction jobs over the build period and at least 4,500 permanent jobs at stabilization.

Supporters said streamlined, predictable timelines for responsible agencies would reduce duplicative work, promote early resolution of technical issues, and increase the likelihood that a high‑standard, environmentally protective project can be entitled without years of delay. Rick Bates of Unite Here emphasized that ELDP projects are required to meet stringent environmental and labor standards, including "LEED gold or better and with no new net GHG emissions," and said SB 675's timelines would help bring projects to fruition sooner.

Opponents, including Defenders of Wildlife and the Planning and Conservation League, said they were "opposed unless amended" and asked for more precise language to protect coastal resources and public‑trust protections. Kim Delfino of Defenders of Wildlife said the organization had concerns and was "hopeful that when we see the final language, that it will move us into removing our opposition." The author and committee chair both recorded commitments on the record to continue technical negotiations with stakeholders and the California Coastal Commission staff before the bill moves further.

The committee's motion, made by Senator Stern, was recorded as do pass, as amended, to Appropriations; Senators Limon, Seardo, Allen, Grove, Hurtado, Laird and Stern voted aye. The chair later confirmed a final committee disposition that recorded both bills as passed out of committee (final tally recorded as 7-0 for SB 675).

Project proponents provided additional figures: construction costs currently estimated at approximately $3,600,000,000, a projected net fiscal impact of about $1,000,000,000 to the region and more than $400,000,000 to the county, and a planned mix of hotel rooms, retail, and large public spaces intended to meet LEED Gold standards and address sea‑level rise adaptation. The author stressed the bill does not supplant CEQA or the Coastal Act standards and said it is limited to improving transparency and timeliness of responsible‑agency reviews for ELDP candidates.

Next steps: SB 675 was referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The author and interested agencies signaled intent to continue language negotiations, particularly with environmental and coastal stakeholders, as the measure moves forward.