By Donna Frye
Plan B, in case the City Council Does NOT Support a Continuance of Item 105 on the July 29, City Council Docket Declaring Three Properties in Mission Bay Park “Surplus Land”
In 1962, Mission Bay Park was officially dedicated as public land in perpetuity. It is one of our most incredible coastal treasures and includes a variety of public uses.
The Surplus Land Act is a state law whose primary purpose is to facilitate residential development with more affordable housing on public land.
It’s not surprising that we got upset when we read last month in the OB Rag that Mission Bay Park was being described as “surplus land”.
On a moment’s notice, our elected officials can and do change the meaning of words and turn our dedicated public parks into surplus land. They eliminate our voter-approved land use measures that have been in place for over 50 years, such as the 30-foot height limit, and upend our community land use plans.
Many common sense building standards are gone and the granny flat in someone’s back yard has morphed into Godzilla with 20 plus dwelling units with no set backs or parking requirements.
It’s not a surprise that people do not trust the process because there are always people who push the well-meaning intention of building affordable housing beyond what anyone would consider to be reasonable.
Mission Bay Park is not surplus land even though the elected officials in Sacramento created a new process by “updating” the Surplus Land Act to include it.
This process means that if the city wants to sell public properties or seek leases that exceed 15 years in Mission Bay Park, the Surplus Land Act applies.
The San Diego Mayor and Council appear to have supported the change to the Surplus Land Act since it is part of the council-approved State and Federal Legislative Platform. Priority Number 15 has been a Policy Priority since at least 2021:
“Support measures that promote the use of public land for houses, including affordable and middle-income housing and streamline Surplus Land Act processes to enhance the viability of housing projects on public land.”
Link: https://www.sandiego.gov/government-affairs/legislative-platform
Allowing our dedicated public parks to be considered “surplus lands” defies common sense and insults our long-held community standards.
The Surplus Land Act also requires the city to send out a Notice of Availability offering the “surplus land” to certain government entities, such as the Department of Housing and Community Development. The list of government entities also includes affordable housing developers and it is my understand that affordable housing developers receive priority consideration.
Even though it may be the city’s intention to issue a lease to someone other than a government entity or housing developer and not sell the property, the plain reading of the words in the staff report make it reasonable to assume the land could be sold, and not just leased, and that residential development could be allowed.
For example, the word “sale” is in the motion at the Land Use & Housing Committee meeting July 2 made by Vice Chair Elo-Rivera and voted on by Councilmembers Campillo and Kent:
“ACTION: Motion by Vice Chair Elo-Rivera, second by Committee Member Campillo, to recommend Council approval of staff’s proposed actions and with the modification to include the condition to the NOA that includes the terms and conditions of the City’s Project Labor Agreement apply to a sale or lease of the property.”
As for the issue of allowing affordable housing and residential development in Mission Bay Park, the reason the public has questions and doubts is because the words “affordable housing” are used frequently in the July 23, 2025, staff report from Economic Development.
For example, page 2 includes a description of the steps that need to be completed in order for residential development to be allowed. On page 3, it goes on to further explain what is required for good faith negations for developing the “surplus land” for affordable housing.
So it’s easy to see why we are concerned about the words being used to describe this process, even if there are development and use restrictions for Mission Bay Park mentioned in the Notice of Availability.
Unfortunately, only two of the development and use restrictions are listed in the Notice of Availability so the respondents are encouraged to figure out for themselves the rest of the restrictions and conditions.
Why can’t the city include a list of all the land use restrictions in the Notice of Availability and add those conditions and restrictions to the Resolution (R-2026-39)?
Why not make it as clear as possible in order to protect and preserve our public parkland?
This issue has been heard at one council committee meeting that lasted all of ten minutes. The public has a right to know what is going on and a right to be provided with all the information needed to make an informed decision before, not after, a vote.
Below is the Letter to City Council that I sent today, July 28.
Dear Councilmembers,
Tomorrow, July 29, 2025, the city council will be voting on Item 105 to declare three leased properties in Mission Bay Park “surplus land.” I requested a continuance until September and emailed that request on July 23, 2025.
If, however, the council decides to move forward, and not support a continuance, I would respectfully request that the following five items be included in the motion:
1. Include development conditions and restrictions for Mission Bay Park Properties (as this council did for the Civic Core Properties that were declared surplus on July 14, 2025) by amending Resolution (R-2026-39) to include language that, at a minimum, protects and preserves the 1972 voter-approved 30-foot height limit in the coastal zone and Charter Section 55; and ensure these conditions are included in the Notice of Availability.
2. Direct staff to follow the guidelines set forth in Council Policy 700-08, Mission Bay Park Policies, to ensure that items related to surplus lands, requests for proposals and lease extensions, be brought forward to the Mission Bay Park Committee in a timely manner. This simple courtesy would have allowed a public discussion prior to coming to the city council and would have provided more time for the public to digest and understand this very complicated issue.
3. Direct staff to amend the City of San Diego’s current State and Federal Legislative Platform, Policy Priority 15 that states, ” Support measures that promote the use of public land for houses, including affordable and middle-income housing and streamline Surplus Land Act processes to enhance the viability of housing projects on public land” by adding language that dedicated public parks, such as Mission Bay, should not be defined as surplus lands. Direct staff to work with the state legislators to amend the Surplus Land Act to exempt our dedicated public parks, such as Mission Bay.
4. Direct staff to prepare written monthly status updates regarding the Surplus Land Act and Mission Bay Park properties to the Mission Bay Park Committee and Land Use and Housing Committee and post them online with the supporting documents so they are readily available to the public.
5. If no government entity, such as affordable housing developers, responds to the Notice of Availability, direct staff to bring forward the city’s Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for these three properties 1936 Quivira Way (Possessory APN 760-029-08) ,1617 Quivira Road (Possessory APN 760-029-03) and 2590 Ingraham Street (Possessory APN 760-029-01) for a public hearing at the Mission Bay Park Committee, the Land Use and Housing Committee and the City Council before advertising the availability of the properties and/or marketing them to the general public. This will help ensure that the public has a voice in helping determine the best use for our public land in Mission Bay Park.
Thank you for your consideration,
Donna Frye
This is the link to make a council comment. I made sure that the word count in my letter to city council did not exceed 500 words if anyone wishes to send it using the form.
https://sandiego.hylandcloud.com/211agendaonlinecouncil/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=6642&doctype=1&site=council
The City should just declare the land in Mission Bay as “exempt surplus” and pass a resolution to that effect. After that they would send their backup material to HCD in order to show the reasons why it’s exempt: it’s dedicated parkland that cannot be used for anything but park uses per the City Charter and this can only change with a vote of the people. It is also governed by the Mission Bay Master Plan which says what uses are allowed. Once the City sends a notification to HCD along with backup information such as a copy of adopted resolution or staff report, parcel map, and documentation of legal restriction (charter section, dedicating ordinance, any deed restriction), HCD has 30 days to respond.
Starting out with the Council declaring it “surplus” is exactly the wrong way to go. They should do “exempt surplus’ right out of the gate and then wait for HCD’s response. The City has enough backup information to declare it exempt. It’s the only thing that actually makes sense. The City doesn’t want housing there either. They just don’t know what they are doing in this process.
Donna Frye just reported to the Rag that Councilmember “Von Wilpert just pulled Item 105 from consent agenda.” This means they will at least have some discussion.
Thank you, Donna Frye!!! Please run again. There’s no common sense what-so-ever in San Diego government.