S.D. puts Mission Bay land use issue on hold – Review of step toward redevelopment pushed back to September
By Jeff McDonald / SD Union-Tribune / July 31, 2025
The San Diego City Council isn’t signing off yet on a plan by Mayor Todd Gloria that would declare dozens of acres of commercial property in Mission Bay Park surplus so it can be offered to developers.
On a 7-1 vote after an hour of debate and criticism of the plan from members of the public, the council agreed this week to revisit the proposal in September, after their August recess.
Council President Joe LaCava voted no on delaying the proposal; Councilmember Vivian Moreno was absent.
San Diego’s decades-old long-term master plan for Mission Bay Park calls for a hotel in the area of the three proposed surplus sites.
A top aide to Gloria acknowledged the city had been approached about building a hotel on the largest of the three parcels — currently the 23-acre site of the Marina Village banquet and conference center. The other sites are home to the Dana Landing Marina on nearby Ingraham Street and the Sportsmen’s Seafood restaurant just down Quivira Way.
“The city did recently receive an unsolicited proposal for one of the three parcels,” said Christina Bibler, the city’s director of economic development.
She said her office planned to write many conditions into the so-called notice of availability to ensure a project that would benefit the city.
“The state law does not require us to come to terms with any of those proposers,” she said.The council’s vote for a delay represented something of a compromise.
Councilmembers Marni von Wilpert and Jennifer Campbell said they would not support a surplus declaration, instead moving to direct the city to work to lobby state lawmakers for an exemption from the state law that would avoid declaring any of the bayfront surplus.
Bibler told the council the designation is required under the Surplus Land Act, which seeks to promote the development of more affordable housing. Under that law, any land being leased for more than 15 years must be declared surplus, and cities must first prioritize the development of affordable housing on it.
The city previously asked state housing officials for an exemption from the requirement but was denied. The city charter bars nonrecreational use of parkland that isn’t accounted for in a park’s master plan.
Von Wilpert and Campbell said the city should not open the door to further development along Mission Bay by declaring the property surplus and potentially making it available for uses that are not part of the master plan.
Instead, they said the city should lobby state lawmakers for a special exemption in new legislation.
“This place needs to be upgraded, but it needs to stay a public park,” von Wilpert said.
Councilmembers Sean Elo-Rivera and Kent Lee said they supported the mayor’s plan as the most effective way to generate private investment in the aging buildings on the three parcels.
“The condition of those buildings is not great,” Elo-Rivera said. “This is basically a restroom for birds. These are dilapidated. We should be very specific about what’s there right now and why it’s important to improve conditions.”
LaCava did not explain his vote against delaying the proposal. But he said during the council discussion that he had “zero confidence” that the state would approve any Surplus Land Act exemptions for Mission Bay.
Redeveloping the existing commercial properties would generate much-needed income for the city, he said.
“We are very hungry for revenue, and this is potential revenue that doesn’t come through the backs of San Diegans,” LaCava said.
The plan to declare the three Mission Bay parcels surplus was initially on the council’s consent agenda, meaning it was not scheduled for a public debate. Von Wilpert pulled it from the docket to allow time for the discussion.
Editordude: Here’s an apropos letter to the editor published in the U-T today, July 31, 2025:
Re “S.D. eyes hotel in Mission Bay as part of parcels’ redevelopment” (July 28): According to the state’s Surplus Land Act, “surplus land, prior to disposition, should be made available for park and recreation purposes or for open-space purposes.” Remember the many meetings held in 2022 and 2023 resulting in the De Anza Natural Plan? Much attention was given to the reduction of affordable camping, the loss of recreational space, and the displacement of the Mission Bay Boat and Ski Club. Why not turn Marina Village’s 23 acres into affordable camping sites, a playground or open picnic space? Why not create space for the Boat & Ski Club on Dana Landing’s 4.5 acres instead of the questionable South Shores? Dana Landing even comes with dock space.
There is a reason the state put parks, recreation and open space ahead of affordable housing. Our city leaders need to honor that.
— Chuck Dunning, La Jolla
The Mission Bay Master Plan has always envisioned a hotel in the Marina Village location and is part of the current planning document. This is how revenue is generated for park maintenance, upgrades, projects, etc.
I ride my bike through the Marina Village area on occasion, and on every ride I am struck by the wasted opportunity this presents. Yes, I have gone to meetings there and, yes, I’ve seen the occasional wedding reception, but by and large the area is a ghost town.
If it cannot be used for park land and actual recreational space, by all means develop a hotel or other profitable land use of this property. City-owned, waterfront property is a precious resource, and this property is being wasted.
Paul Webb is absolutely correct. For whatever reason, visitors to the coast do not go to use Marina Village. We would be far better off with a hotel on site, or my preference would be direct competition to whole home short term rentals in Mission Beach, which should be returned to the residents.
With all due respect to you and Paul, there’s a circular argument going on here. Marina Village — not parkland — is under-utilized so let’s have a hotel. But it’s not being utilized as parkland –so why have a hotel which is just more private interests making profit off our park? There’s a lot of public subsidizing private interests already throughout Mission Bay Park. The city rents public space to SeaWorld for dirt cheap rent. And look how difficult it was in getting SeaWorld to pay its back rent — the City had to go to court. Mission Bay is the largest aquatic park on the West Coast and historically the public has been restricted from much of its use. So, let’s just build more restrictions. It doesn’t make sense when we need more parkland –for the public.
Frank, you are ignoring the fact that I said “IF it cannot be used for parkland…” That is obviously the highest and best use. I only would consider a hotel if no public recreational use is possible. That said, if it is not possible I’d rather see a hotel than what is there now: a complete waste of valuable park land.
Then I stand corrected.
It’s important to remember though that this area has been planned for hotel use in the Mission Bay Master Plan for a long time, which is an accepted use of parkland per the City Charter. When hotels are designed well, they can help the public by boosting tourism, providing access, and bringing in important money for park upkeep, such as bay dredging, and other improvements. Also, Mission Bay has a rule that only 25% of the land and water can be leased for commercial use, and this new hotel wouldn’t make the commercial area bigger because it would just take the place of an existing commercial use that is already there. There has to be a balance between creating sustainable public uses and the financial needs of keeping a big city park like this running.