By Donna Frye
The mayor wants the city council to declare three properties in Mission Bay Park, “surplus land” in order to allow the city to receive new lease proposals that would bring in more money. The three properties include Marina Village, Dana Landing Marina and Sportsmen’s Seafood.
The mayor believes that the recently amended Surplus Land Act requires the city to follow certain procedures in order to lease the three Mission Bay properties if the lease terms exceed 15 years.
However, if the city council declares the properties “surplus land” the city would be required by law to solicit and receive offers that would give priority to housing developers, despite the fact that Mission Bay Park is dedicated public parkland and our city charter does not allow it.
The mayor’s director of communications has stated that the “city unequivocally doesn’t want housing on the three Mission Bay properties”, but that does not change the reality of what would happen if the city council supports the mayor’s request and declares the Mission Bay Park properties “surplus land.”
If the Mission Bay Park properties were declared “surplus land”, it would set in motion a process that would give housing developers first priority for the leases- the very thing the mayor says the city does not want to do.
On July 29, the city council considered the mayor’s request and voted to continue it until September.
At that meeting a councilmember asked if there had been any proposals received or interest shown on any of the three properties and the city staff responded “yes”. That’s how the public learned there had been an “unsolicited proposal” for the Marina Village property.
The city did not provide that information to the public until August 26 and likely did so because of a Public Records Act request.
The unsolicited proposal is from the current tenant, Southern California Pipe Trades Retirement Fund through their entity SCPT Marina Village, LLC, and is joined by Suntex Marina Investors LLC and Monarch Investment Fund Management Co.,LLC. (Suntex-Monarch).
The development proposal includes “a state-of-the-art marina, hotel, spa & conference center with up to 900 residential units, of which thirty percent (30%) will be affordable.”
After learning that 900 residential units were part of the unsolicited proposal, I wondered what the likely scenario would be if the city council declares the three properties in Mission Bay Park “surplus land” since, to the best of my knowledge, the city is not currently required to negotiate with Suntex-Monarch or consider their development proposal.
According to the June 23, 2025 staff report to the city council, if the land is declared surplus by the city council, “the City must send out a notice of availability (NOA) of the land for sale or lease to certain entities listed in the Government Code…”
Those entities include housing developers who are given first priority and consideration for development that meets certain criteria.
Monarch Housing Solutions, LLC, located in La Jolla, is on the list of entities as a CalHFA Certified Housing Sponsor. They would receive notice and would likely respond to the NOA since they have already shown an interest in the property and submitted an unsolicited proposal.
According to the city’s draft NOA, the Surplus Land Act (SLA) requires that the city enter into good faith negotiations with any entity who responds and “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.”
On page 2 of the Suntex-Monarch unsolicited proposal it states that it “is committed to providing up to 900 residential units…”
The city’s NOA also states, “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 greater 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.”
The Suntex-Monarch unsolicited proposal “is committed to providing up to 900 residential units, of which thirty percent (30%) will be affordable units with a preference for hotel workers”.
Despite all the protestations from the mayor’s office about not wanting to build housing on public parkland and saying that the “…hurdles alone are next to insurmountable as a developer would have to have 25% of the units designated as affordable” and how difficult it would be to get California Coastal Commission approval, it seems that at least one developer doesn’t agree with that assessment and is willing to accept the challenge.
According to the Suntex-Monarch development proposal (on page 3) they are “confident that this type of mixed-use development, which includes housing and commercial uses, will be positively considered by the California Coastal Commission…” Their confidence is based upon a project that had been recently approved in Huntington Beach, The Magnolia Tank Farm.
The bottom line is this- If the city council does as the mayor is requesting and declares the three Mission Bay Park properties “surplus land” it is all but certain that the city will receive proposals that include housing development requiring good faith negotiations. It will open the door to turning our public parklands into private housing developments.
Mission Bay is not surplus land; it is dedicated public park land. If the mayor really does not want housing being considered on public parkland, stop engaging in the Surplus Land Act process and find a different option.
Thank you for updating us on this slow moving train wreck. I’m grateful someone in San Diego is keeping the Mayor accountable.
Just consider that Monarch developed the “Dylan Point Loma” apartments, the housing on the old Mission Beach school site and.others. They are insiders insiders and seem to have a pipeline to develop publicly owned properties.
“Beware the camel’s nose” The voters are too dumb to save us from this fiasco. Are you voting for the Mayor’s insider DEM candidates in D2, the district affected? Good luck! Dumb voters!
Thanks very much Donna for keeping us updated on this important story. Your work — and the Public Records Act — are providing us with the kind of information we need, and that we don’t get from our city council, mayor, or city employees. This information, in particular, is very troubling:
“The unsolicited proposal is from the current tenant, Southern California Pipe Trades Retirement Fund through their entity SCPT Marina Village, LLC, and is joined by Suntex Marina Investors LLC and Monarch Investment Fund Management Co.,LLC. (Suntex-Monarch).
The development proposal includes “a state-of-the-art marina, hotel, spa & conference center with up to 900 residential units, of which thirty percent (30%) will be affordable.”
Hopefully, your research will force the city council to fully address these issues when it revisiting the Mission Bay/Surplus Lands Act issue this Fall.
Donna, bravo for your investigative reporting. Regardless of the City’s sneaky and most-likely corrupt ways, I can’t get over the opportunity cost this would be to the people of San Diego. If a hotel is allowed there, access to precious coastal public space will be privatized for hotel guests. These properties belong to the people of San Diego, not out-of-town visitors!
These properties are not “Surplus Land!” They should be the Seaport Village of Mission Bay, with shops and restaurants along a public right-of-way marina boardwalk; an open-air seafood market for fishers to sell their catch, similar to Tuna Harbor Dockside Market on San Diego Bay; an ocean and wetlands education education center with viewing stations and trailhead access to the San Diego River Estuary; a public outdoor concert space; a conference space with limited onsite housing not to exceed 30 feet; and an electric ferry accessing other hotels on the bay.
Once again, Donna, you have translated and made common sense, to me and others, of what is really going on. And I agree with the comments posted above me.
Thank you,
Thank you Donna Frye!
The current mayor and city council members should pay attention and learn from your example of due diligence and service to your fellow citizens. All local media should also take a lesson from the OB Rag and cover these stories that matter to all the people of San Diego.
I love your vision David Everett – that’s the San Diego we know and love. A bike rental shop – no ebikes allowed – with a dedicated bike path like the Silver Strand. Playground with ice cream shop, food trucks. There could even be a wildlife viewing boat tour – weaves around slowly to see the sea lions, pelicans like the SD Harbor tour boat that locals and passengers on cruise ships might like. A ferris wheel, a weekend farmer’s market, art gallery with local art; a nautical gift shop with antique boating items. This could easily become a destination.
Thank you Donna for your continued involvement. Very tricky situation our Mayor is planning, which by all accounts IS WRONG for our beloved parklands.
And, by the way, is a very disturbing pattern of behavior for a Mayor who claims to love his city. He doesn’t seem to hear us and is obviously being driven by something else entirely.
This proposal seems to fit right in with the scenario we described in The Rag on August 7. https://obrag.org/2025/08/a-deeper-dive-into-issue-of-surplus-lands-of-mission-bay/
“While not ordinarily a conspiracy minded person, this appeared to this writer like a set up. All the city needs is a volunteer developer to provide some kind of proposal, argue about it for 90 days, then declare good faith negotiations failed to produce an agreement on terms or price or both. The Surplus Land Act would no longer apply and long, attractive leases would then be possible.”
Is there a way we can get a copy of the actual response Donna received on her request? I think this should get a wide circulation since the city never mentioned anything about 900 housing units in their presentation. There are many ways to avoid the Surplus land Act if they really want to.
This is disgusting. Not only has this Mayor and Council reduced park fees and eliminated park standards, they are now looking to REDUCE park land! This cannot be allowed under any circumstances. Anyone up to recall any of these lying liars? There should be NO consideration of reducing park land ANYwhere in the City.
Donna is Right and the Mayor is Wrong