By Donna Frye / Special to OB Rag
I have never seen the words “surplus lands” used in the same sentence as Mission Bay Park and it was shocking to say the least.
I had no idea that dedicated public parkland was subject to the Surplus Lands Act until I read Geoff Page’s July 9 article about Mission Bay Park in the OB Rag.
After doing some research, I learned that the “surplus lands” issue in Mission Bay Park was heard at a July 2, 2025 Land Use and Housing Committee meeting as Item Number 11.
Included in the documents was a Notice of Availability soliciting lease proposals for the three Mission Bay Park properties which states in part:
“If the City receives more than one letter of interest for any of the Properties during the 60-day response period, it will give first priority to entities proposing to develop housing where at least 25 percent of the units will be affordable to lower income households. If more than one such proposal is received to ground lease any of the Properties, the City will give priority to the proposal with the greatest number of lower income affordable units. If more than one proposal specifies the same number of lower income affordable units for any of the Properties, priority will be given to the proposal that has the lowest average affordability level.”
It also states:
“San Diego Charter Section 55 Restrictions
The Properties are located in Mission Bay Park. In 1962, the City dedicated Mission Bay Park in perpetuity as a public park under Ordinance O-8628 in accordance with San Diego Charter Section 55 (“Charter Section 55”). Charter Section 55 includes the following restrictions:
All real property owned in fee by the City heretofore or hereafter formally dedicated in perpetuity by ordinance of the Council or by statute of the State Legislature for park, recreation, or cemetery purposes shall not be used for any but park, recreation, or cemetery purposes without such changed use or purpose having been first authorized or later ratified by a vote of two-thirds of the qualified electors of the City voting at an election for such purpose.”
It is weirdly contradictory.
I also read the staff power point presentation on page 6 it shows some of the steps required to allow the current leases to be changed from dedicated, voter-approved park land to housing. It states:
“The following would be required to allow affordable housing on the Properties:
• All permits, land use approvals, and environmental clearances necessary to complete a proposed project, including:
§ Completion of discretionary and legislative land use amendment processes, including amendments to Mission Bay Park Master Plan and General Plan.
§ Approvals from Planning Commission and the California Coastal Commission.”
It may be that this language is pro forma and I do not have a full understanding of it.
I also learned that under the Surplus Lands Act a city is required to formally declare land as “ surplus” when it intends to lease property for a term longer than 15 years.
I do not know why the city didn’t seek a shorter term for the leases so the Surplus Lands Act would not be triggered. Why not seek a 14-year lease?
If “what’s past is prologue” we all have good reason to be concerned.
The State of California has shown little regard for our local community plans or even our public votes such as the 1972 ballot measure, Prop D, that approved a 30-foot height limit in the coastal zone.
A large part of why the will of the San Diego voters is now being ignored is because of Assembly Bill (AB) 1287 that was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor in 2023. In a nutshell, it allows for an additional “stackable” density bonus on top of the existing maximum 50 percent density bonus provided by the Density Bonus Law. It does not provide any exemptions for voter approved ballot measures of which I am aware.
I bring this up is because I would not be surprised if our California elected officials came up with some other very special, density-inducing bonus for developers to allow them to build housing in our dedicated public parks.
I have serious doubts, based on past actions regarding Prop D, that the city would do anything to protect or defend the will of the voters and challenge such a move if it came to be.
And I cannot tell you how lousy it feels to write those words.
The Mission Bay Park “surplus lands” issue will be heard by the San Diego City Council sometime soon but probably the last week of July.
When the San Diego City Council hears the item, they will be required to provide written findings to formally declare the land as “surplus”. There were no written findings provided at the Land Use and Housing Committee meeting on July 2.
Finally, here are some links that may be helpful for folks who want to read the documents.
July 2, 2025 Land Use and Housing Committee Meeting
See Item 11 for the Mission Bay “surplus land” item
https://sandiego.hylandcloud.com/211agendaonlinecomm/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=6599&doctype=1&site=comm
There are four documents available for review online for this item.
Mission Bay DRAFT NOA v2 06 26 26.docx
Final Approval Log (Published)
P.S. And if you want to read more about Mission Bay leases, check out Items 7 and 8 about Campland and DeAnza lease extensions.
Donna Frye you will forever be my hero. Thank you
This “surplus land’ issue smells. It also seems to be a long end run toward someday changing the status of Balboa Park, too.
Thanks for jumping in and adding to the discussion, Donna, people listen when you have something to say.
Ms. Frye, you are so truly missed representing the people of San Diego! All this nonsense has to be so painful to you as it is to the rest of us who treasure our community plans, historic buildings, 30 foot height limit, protection of parks, etc.
Many thanks to all the writers and investigators who fight to protect our city, land and for the OBRAG for publishing information and keeping the public informed.
Donna, a million thanks! At this perilous juncture — really, did you ever think our city government would sink to these depths? — we desperately need your wisdom and your voice. When the Council hears this item, constituents need to pack the chamber. Let’s give them another 5-hour lesson in why their efforts to overturn local democracy will spark a populist insurrection.
Thanks very very much Donna for doing this research and sharing this information. I’m going to post this on my social media and hope it gets more attention. I’ll try to follow up too and be there to raise concerns if and whenthis issue comes before the full council.
As a board member of the Mission Bay Park Committee, I will hold my opinion on this issue at this time. With that said I would encourage the public to attend any city council meeting and absolutely attend the net Mission Bay Park Committee Meeting to voice your opinion whether it’s on the agenda or not (I unfortunately don’t control the agenda). Our Next meeting will be held 6pm at the Paradise Point Resort. Hope to see you all there. For More info please go to https://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/general-info/boards/mbpc
Giovanni Ingolia
Mission Bay Park Committee Board Member District 2
Why would you hold your opinion? That’s a myth that elected/ selected representatives cannot express their true opinions on an issue in front of the community. How else are we/ they supposed to know where reps stand? (Don’t take this personally, mi amigo.) Anybody who is an elected who claims this must answer to the community on just what is their stance. Otherwise, why represent anybody? Free speech is real.
Free speech is important and I encourage it. I just wanted to see what Real Estate Assets has to say before I give a final opinion. With that said I take this roll seriously and that was why I was the lone vote against the proposed expansion of the Bahia by Bill Evan’s and most recently voted against moving lease money to expand the Parking lot at Robb Field especially replacing grass areas of the park for asphalt. I’ll say this so far I’m disturbed with what I have read with Staff documents and want to make sure I’m understanding everything correctly thats why I’m withholding a final opinion. I also what to hear from the public so I can represent them properly.
I just have too many memories of city councilmembers — Byron anyone? — using the excuse of not being allowed to take a position before the council met on the particular issue and not letting the community knew where he or she stood on that issue.
And my comment was in no way to disparage your role on or prior votes on this important oversight committee, Gio.
I know it’s not your intent and as always thank you for your activism and getting the word out about the City of San Diego wanting to designate MB Park Lands as “surplus.” Hope to see you at the next meeting.
The next regular meetings will resume on August 5, 2025 at Paradise Point Resort at 6pm. (The July meeting was cancelled due to lack of agenda items.)
Mr. Ingolia has reached “Mass Respect” status in my book. Thank you both.
When can we begin a “recall” vs. Gloria and several Council members? Donna, you are the best. We all miss you. Please keep writing!
Thank you Donna for your research and insights into the ongoing public vs government land wars. Wars because public input has never meant less to elected officials. Add to that, quality of life issues, public safety, etc.. I hope to see more articles from you in the future. We need your voice more than ever.
This item is at Council on Tuesday, July 29, 2025. It’s on the consent agenda.
https://sandiego.hylandcloud.com/211agendaonlinecouncil/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=6628&doctype=1&site=council