By Geoff Page
It seems that City Hall – Todd Gloria – has found a new golden egg called “surplus lands.” This term first surfaced during the Midway redevelopment debacle. The city declared the 40 plus acres as surplus land so it could make a deal with a developer.
The term “surplus” land does not make sense, intuitively, when commercial and entertainment businesses cover the land, all making lease payments to the city. Surplus brings to mind unimproved scrub land not anything like the Midway property.
City Hall now wants to designate as “surplus lands” 23 acres at Marina Village, 1936 Quivera Way, 4.5 acres at Dana Landing, 1617 Quivera Way, and 0.8 acres at 2590 Ingraham Street, where Sportsmen’s Seafood is now.
The June 23, 2025 city staff report states:
The City intends to issue a NOA [Notice of Availability] for the lease of the Properties. In the NOA, the City will indicate that the following steps would be required to allow for the development of affordable housing on the Properties
Housing in Mission Bay Park? Affordable housing? Does this mean a hi-rise of multimillion-dollar condos with a few small, affordable apartments in the basement?
That is not all. A Union Tribune story, May 5, 2023, “It’s official: San Diego’s City Hall complex is being advertised for sale or lease,” stated:
San Diego’s Civic Center real estate, or roughly eight acres in the heart of downtown, is officially on the market.
It’s official: San Diego’s City Hall complex is being advertised for sale or lease
This offering or surplus lands includes:
- The City Administration Building – 202 C Street
- The Civic Theater – 1100 Third Ave.
- Golden Hall – 9 Civic Center Plaza
- The Parkade – Civic Center Plaza
- 101 Ash Street
Yes, that is correct, Todd put 101 Ash Street into this pile of surplus land.
And, there is more. Another Union-Tribune story, “San Diego preparing to put downtown operations building on the market” stated:
On Wednesday, San Diego’s Land Use and Housing Committee voted 3-0 in favor of declaring the City Operations Building at 1222 First Ave. as surplus.
San Diego preparing to put downtown operations building on the market
This building has been the long-time abode of the Development Services Department. That department is in the process of moving to a leased building at 7650 Mission Valley Road and another leased space at 550 W. C Street. The leases are only for four years and five years respectively.
Very important real estate belonging to the citizens of San Diego is being offered to the best bidder based only on the decisions of city hall. One can only imagine what Todd’s developer friends would do with all that prime real estate. The mayor is selling off San Diego land to solve his own budget problems. Using principal – land – to pay off debts is a bad idea. Disposing of land is a bad idea.
It is stupidity to let ten people, who are desperate for money and a future political life, decide what to do with property that belongs to 1.4 million San Diegans.
The similarities between San Diego’s City Hall mess and the mess in Washington are many. What is most noteworthy is that both places have large, shadow organizations behind each of the two figureheads.
No sane person could believe the current president has the brain power to have thought up the wide-ranging assault on, well, everything. That assault was cooked up by those in the shadows behind the president.
What Todd Gloria is doing now with the “surplus lands” designation is the same thing. Todd does not have the brain power to think things like this up, but his friends do. His developer friends.
Definition of surplus land from “Updated Surplus Land Act Guidelines Final”
Section 102. Definitions (dd)
“Surplus land” means land owned in fee simple for which a local agency’s governing body takes formal action at a regular public meeting declaring land to be surplus and not necessary for a local agency’s use (as defined in section 104 of these Guidelines). Land must be declared either “surplus” or “exempt surplus” as supported by written findings before a local agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency’s policies or procedures. A local agency, on an annual basis, may declare multiple parcels as “surplus” or “exempt surplus.”
That section raises a question, what is “agency use?”
Section 104. Agency’s Use
(a) Except as provided below, “agency’s use” shall include, but not be limited to, land that is being used for agency work or operations, land that a local agency plans to use for agency work or operations pursuant to a written plan adopted by the local agency’s governing board, or land that is disposed of for agency work or operations.
(1) “Agency work or operations” includes, but is not limited to, utility sites; watershed property; land being used for conservation purposes; land for demonstration, exhibition, or educational purposes related to greenhouse gas emissions, property owned by a port that is used to support logistics uses, sites for broadband equipment or wireless facilities, buffer sites located near sensitive governmental uses, including, but not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, and waste disposal sites.
Agency use is a critical component of declaring any land as surplus. Council Policy 700-10, dated February 11, 2025, is titled, “Disposition of City-Owned Real Property.” It states:
If the City is legally required to sell a City property, the City will make the property available for sale in compliance with applicable legal requirements. In addition, if a City property is not currently used by any City department, and if the Department determines (based on its own evaluation or any input from other City departments, City leadership, or City Council offices) that the property does not support a municipal function and does not have a foreseeable City use, the City may make the property available for sale when one or more of the following criteria are met: …
In other words, the city has to check with all departments to see if they have any use for the land. But, the city staff report about the Mission Bay properties stated:
Waive the requirement in Council Policy 700-10 that “surplus land” be circulated for review by City Departments to determine if there is a municipal use for the land prior to any disposition of the land.
Again, in other words, in a rush to satisfy his political friends, the mayor has decided to speak for all departments himself and to ignore Council Policy 700-10.
Giving away park land for housing would seem like a bad idea to most people. But then add in a feel good term to soften opposition like “affordable housing.” This tactic may not work this time. Even die-hard affordable housing advocates would have to look at this idea sideways.
There may be a good argument for declaring some underused land as surplus land but there are two critical problems in doing so.
The first problem is letting inexperienced and inept politicians make deals with developers who eat politicians for breakfast. A great analogy was an episode of the Sopranos, an HBO series about mobsters. A guy with a restaurant asks the Don to come into business with him to fend off another bad guy. They bleed the business dry and end by torching the building.
The second problem is letting the mayor and nine councilpersons, everyone one of whom is looking to further their political careers, make decisions involving land that belongs to all of San Diego. And, many of their careers depend on making their wealthy donors happy, most of whom could profit off of deals like this.
Editordude: The Rag will publish additional posts on this controversial plan of the City to sell or lease Mission Bay park land.
LOL, another new site of San Diego mismanagement, what a surprise. Another mole to whack? LMFAO.
Hi, Geoff- the draft NOA states that:
“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.”
Does this mean the change in use (housing) would require voter approval?
I honestly don’t know yet. The land is within the park but has been leased to commercial enterprises. It seems to me this would be great to return it to park land if the city doesn’t need it. Developing here is nuts. Lots of people are looking into issues like this.
Geoff, thanks for bringing this to our attentions. The land is already dedicated parkland. The commercial leases in Mission Bay Park are legitimate visitor-serving uses that enable and facilitate public access and use of publicly owned parkland and tidelands. Private residential use is an illegal use of dedicated parkland under the City Charter Section 55.
See my other comment for more detail.
The land in Mission Bay Park is dedicated park land under the City Charter Section 55 and can only be used for visitor-serving recreational commercial purposes. Residential use, other than temporary uses for hotels and RV/camping, is not legal and requires a 2/3 majority vote to change the use.
It has already cost the city (therefore city taxpayers) well over $30 million dollars to regain the parkland at De Anza Point which was used for residential mobile homes from the late 1960s (transitioned gradually from short-term camping to year-round residential) until declared an illegal use of dedicated park land in 1981. Unfortunately, the city failed to address this illegal use prior to 1981 and acquiesced to continued use until 2003 when the ground lease expired. However, a group of residents of the mobile home park filed suit and it took more than another decade before the final residents moved out.
Then there’s the reality that Mission Bay Park, land and water, including land created from dredging Mission Bay in the 1950s-60s, like De Anza Point, the Sea World leasehold, and Quivira Basin, is designated as State Tidelands and private residential housing – however ‘affordable’ it may be – is not a legal use on Tidelands, just as is the case with San Diego’s City Charter regarding all dedicated parkland.
I don’t understand how the Mayor or City Attorney can consider dedicated parkland, much less California Public Trust tidelands as “surplus land” to be sold for private development purposes.
Here’s an excerpt from a Coastal Commission Staff Report in 2007 regarding the Port of San Diego’s proposal for “condominium hotels” on Public Trust Land.
“The subject site is a prime location adjacent to the shoreline and a variety of public amenities. The California State Lands Commission has reviewed the timeshare portion of the PMPA, and ruled that the proposed development of timeshares on public tidelands would be inconsistent with the Public Trust Doctrine and an inappropriate use of filled sovereign tide and submerged lands, because it would significantly impair the public’s right to these trust lands which have been historically set aside for the benefit of the statewide public. The proposed timeshares would only be available to a small segment of the population who can afford the high cost of the initial purchase and who would then own personal rights to the rooms, thereby preventing other use of these public lands. The site could be developed with legitimate public-serving uses. Allowing timeshares on this site would not protect and promote visitor accommodations, and could set an adverse precedent regarding the preservation of public access and visitor-serving public accommodations in the Coastal Zone.
Furthermore, the hotel as proposed is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirements to provide and protect lower cost visitor and recreational facilities.”
Thank you, Judy! That’s the kind of comment I love, informational and adding to discussion.
Yes, it would require a 2/3 majority vote to allow private residential use of dedicated parkland.
Excellent and well-sourced article, Geoff. As for the sale of the Operations Building, the city was very oblique on what would happen to the fire station. With the massive development and influx of residents downtown, the city must keep the fire station downtown and fully operational at all times throughout redevelopment.
Do we really want to experience the sequel to the movie “Towering Inferno”?
As for the Mission Bay Park land. Before land transfer, wouldn’t there need to be a soils test for liquefaction?
Well, there would be a geotechnical investigation for sure . But, having spent my career in construction, I always have to say that you can build anything anywhere with enough money. The biggest issue would be that sea level rise will be a problem for Mission Bay. Whatever could be built there would be very expensive.
The city has a horrible track record protecting Public Tide Lands. Think Campland, Paradise Pt. to name just two examples in addition to Judith’s. While they may lease these areas, it does not bode well for the public. We need to keep our eyes on this one in addition to the Port & Midway rising.
I recall the Surplus Lands Act supercedes any local land use or dedication restrictions. The state knows better.
Hi Geoff,
Could you please link the staff report regarding the Mission Bay Surplus land? I am unable to find anything about this surplus land on the city’s website, and as Judy mentioned, this is not a proper use of public parklands at all.
Savannah — We just published the entire report (all pdf files).
Thank you for this platform and shedding a light on this.
The Rag and our writers and supporters are very grateful to the anonymous sources who sent us the report in the first place.