By Donna Frye
On August 11, I received notice from the city that records were available for public review for Mission Bay Park, specifically the documents related to declaring three properties surplus lands and the communications between the city and the state.
Here is the link to the City of San Diego’s Next Request for Request 25-5691. [ https://sandiego.nextrequest.com/requests/25-5691 ]
Many of the documents were not shared with the public at the Land Use and Housing Committee Special meeting on July 2, 2025, the City Council meeting on July 29 or the Mission Bay Park Committee meeting on August 5.
While some are duplicative of one another, they do provide a partial timeline and some answers as to how the decision was made to declare all three properties in Mission Bay Park “surplus land”. There are some time gaps in the emails.
I have reviewed the documents briefly but focused on the emails for now. I have not gone through all the attachments and the following are just my initial observations.
The documents show that the city made a request to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) seeking an exemption to the Surplus Land Act (SLA ) on April 8, 2025, through HCD’s online portal.
The exemption request included a description of the city’s Request for Proposals for the Marina Village property and stated that it would be for a 50-year lease to “redevelop Marina Village into a 500-room hotel with limited retail, conference facilities, restaurants, new parking facilities, and renovation of the existing 635 slip marina in accordance with Charter Section 55 and the new Master Plan”.
It also requested “…HCD’s concurrence that the proposed future lease of Marina Village is exempt from the Surplus Land Act under Government Code Section 54221 (f) (1) (j) because the Property is subject to a valid legal restriction that makes housing prohibited.”
A response was received from the HCD-assigned staff on April 9, who commented that,“This looks like a complicated one.”
On April 10, HCD staff advises the city that they, “…don’t think the ‘public vote’ provision is going to get you a valid legal restriction…” and “…to move forward with the standard NOA process…”
On April 15, city staff advises HCD staff that they “…are in the process of obtaining more information regarding the subject request I sent thru the portal.” They also ask if HCD staff has some time on April 16 to “connect briefly.”
On April 21, HCD staff responds to city staff and asks for some times and dates that work.
On May 14, HCD staff lets the city staff know they “…did open discussions about ‘Open Space’ and our hotel/convention center property. It turns out there is a 1990s AGO on this issue but it is not directly on point. So, our lawyers are looking at the AGO to determine it if applies to your situation.”
On June 26, the city sent a draft Notice of Availability for the HCD staff to review and see if it met HCD guidelines.
On July 1, city staff sends a follow-up email to HCD staff to check in on the status of the draft Notice of Availability review. HCD staff responds they “Will get to it tomorrow.”
On July 3, a different city staff person is contacted by State Lands Commission staff seeking more information. The State Lands Commission staff comments include this,“ Based on the staff report it appears that the City is interested in pursuing development of low-cost housing on these properties.”
On July 3, city staff references a conversation they had with staff from the State Lands Commission about how to deal with land that was granted to the city by the state. City staff memorialized that conversation in an email by asking if it was correct that some of the land should be declared “exempt surplus” and other lands should be declared “surplus”.
On July 8, city staff sent an email to staff at the State Lands Commission. It says in part, “ After discussion with HCD, we’ve decided to adjust our approach from what I previously shared with you. HCD felt, and we agreed, that designating portions of the property as ‘exempt surplus land’ and others as ‘surplus lands’ would be duplicative and potentially confusing, as it not really feasible to lease State Trust Lands separately from the remainder of the property. Instead, HCD suggested that we declare the entire properties as ‘surplus land’, with the Notice of Availability (NOA) including the clarification that certain portions are State Trust Lands….”
On July 8, State Lands Commission staff replied that they
“…understand the potential confusion in using a different designation for the portions of the parcels that are located on Trust Lands and agree it isn’t feasible to lease the Trust Lands separately from the rest of the parcels.”
On July 8 city staff sends an email to HCD staff and thanks them “…for taking time to speak with us today!” Included on the list of email recipients is a San Diego Deputy City Attorney.
On July 15, which appears to be the final email communication, there is a request from city staff to HCD staff asking them if the “attached looks ok.” HCD staff responds to city staff “…yes, you are good to go.”
If I am reading this correctly, HCD advised the city to declare portions of State Trust Lands “surplus land” (even though the Mission Bay Park State Trust Land wasn’t surplus) and the staff at the State Lands Commission agreed and so did the mayor.
And one of the reasons given to declare the portions of the Mission Bay properties that are not surplus land, as surplus land,is because it would be “potentially confusing” to do otherwise.
During all of this, this issue was docketed at a Special Meeting of the Land Use and Housing committee meeting where three city councilmembers voted to support the “surplus land” declaration.
The item then moved forward to the city council where it was docketed on the Consent Agenda and thankfully got continued by a majority of the councilmembers because the public got involved and opposed it.
The issue was heard at the Mission Bay Park Committee meeting and they voted to oppose calling Mission Bay Park “surplus land”.
The city council is on legislative recess until September. As more information becomes available, such as who sent the unsolicited proposal to the city for redeveloping Marina Village, or anything else that helps to better understand this, I will send along.
In the meantime, I continue to believe that calling Mission Bay Park surplus land defies common sense and needs to be stopped.
Again, thank you very much for bring this info to us, in layman’s language. I truly appreciate your knowledge, expertise, and publication in following thru.
Great information, Ms. Frye. And, it appears your name means something at the city because you got all that public record information very quickly, keep using that.
I haven’t read all the documents, but read the e-mail exchange between the City and HCD and/or State Lands Commission. At first, I thought that yes, HCD told them they can’t declare them exempt surplus but then realized all they really got from HCD was a suggestion.
The City of San Diego has a strong case to designate the Mission Bay parcels as exempt surplus under the Surplus Land Act. Multiple legal restrictions bar housing here:
Charter Section 55 (voter-approved) requires a public vote for any non-park use of dedicated parkland.
The Mission Bay Park Master Plan designates these sites for recreational or commercial-recreational uses, not housing.
Portions are state-granted tidelands trust lands, where residential use is prohibited. This is why the De Anza residents had to go. I think that only a small portion of the parcels is tidelands.
Declaring the land “exempt surplus” would have only triggered a 30-day HCD review, and if HCD objected, the City could have defended its position publicly and legally. That approach would have protected parkland, reinforced the City’s local authority, and avoided misleading housing developers into thinking housing could be built here. It also would have shown people that the City was willing to stand up and fight for long-dedicated Mission Bay Park.
Instead, the City followed HCD’s procedural suggestion (that’s all it was) to declare all of it “surplus,” which automatically opens the door to affordable housing proposals — even on land that’s been dedicated park space since 1962. This blurs the legal distinctions, undermines the City’s own restrictions, and has fueled public anger from people who believe the City is now trying to build housing in their park.
In short, the City gave up the fight before it even started.
The land at Quivera is already a commercial development, or was forty years ago. The two or three restaurants did not make it. Perhaps a hotel would.
Is it just me, or is anyone else detecting a repeat pattern here?
Does this Mission Bay thing look like the deal of the “Qualcomm stadium land fiasco”? The pattern being: City wants to do something with newly available land and they take steps to follow thru with their own ideas. The City attempts to circumvent due process that eventually allowed SDSU (or similar entity) the opportunity.
Here, I’ve been thinking that the City of San Diego is not transparent in their business dealings. Come to find out however, the pattern of intent is totally transparent.
Thanks to people like Donna Frye, the City gets their hand caught in the cookie jar.
When will we ever learn?
How much taxpayer money has been, and has to be, reallocated from shovel ready projects to legally defend the City against all of these legitimate lawsuits? And Isn’t that in itself a form of malfeasance?
Thank you Donna Frye,
I wish you were Mayor, San Diego has been given to the developers at residents expense.