By Donna Frye
Below are my comments to the Mission Bay Park Committee for the August 5 Meeting.
RE: Oppose Item 202, Recommendation to City Council to Declare City-Owned Real Property within Mission Bay Park as Surplus Land
Dear Chair Johnson and Honorable Committee Members,
I am writing to ask this committee to oppose the mayor’s recommendation to declare City-Owned Real Property within Mission Bay Park as Surplus Land.
Last month, when I first learned that the mayor was asking the city council to declare three properties in Mission Bay Park “surplus land” I could not believe what I was reading. After lots of research, it became clear that a “surplus land” declaration would allow developers to submit proposals to the city to build affordable housing in Mission Bay Park.
How could state-granted Tidelands on dedicated public parkland (that was codified by the voters as parkland in perpetuity by San Diego City Charter Section 55 ) be declared “surplus” and made available for developers to submit proposals to build affordable housing?
It made no sense to me then and it still doesn’t.
The major premise of the mayor’s staff report is that the city has to declare Mission Bay Park “surplus land” if they want to sell or lease properties in Mission Bay Park for a period over 15 years.
The mayor said, “These city-owned properties are hidden gems in Mission Bay that have not yet reached their full potential.”
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.”
Council President LaCava said that, “We are very hungry for revenue, and this is potential revenue that doesn’t come through the backs of San Diegans.”
While it is true that the city needs money, its longstanding budget problems won’t be solved by declaring three properties in Mission Bay Park “surplus land” unless they all know something that we don’t.
There is no urgency to make such a declaration because the properties are already producing revenue for the city and the lease for the largest property, Marina Village, doesn’t expire until 2027.
Doing what is right and necessary to protect and preserve Mission Bay Park from being developed for uses never intended by the voters of San Diego far outweighs the extra dollars a new lease might generate.
For example, at the July 29 city council meeting where this issue was heard, Councilmember von Wilpert made a motion that was seconded by Councilmember Campbell to direct the city to work to lobby state lawmakers for an exemption from the state law that would avoid declaring any portion of Mission Bay Park as “surplus land.” That motion was superseded by a motion to continue the item.
The mayor’s staff has said that “the city sought exemptions so the parcels could be redeveloped without declaring them surplus or invoking the Surplus Land Act – but the state Housing and Community Development Department denied that request.”
Unfortunately, I have not seen any documents from the mayor’s staff to the state showing that request nor any documents from the state to the mayor’s staff showing that denial. I have been unsuccessful thus far in obtaining copies of those documents despite my requests and the public’s right to know.
We also have learned that the mayor’s office received an unsolicited proposal for the Marina Village property. Unfortunately, that information has not been shared with the public either so we don’t know when the proposal was made or who made it, but we have a right to know that too.
We also have a right to know if any other options exist when the mayor wants to sell or lease dedicated park property instead of just declaring Mission Bay Park “surplus land.”
This committee needs more information and more time to fully comprehend what this declaration of “surplus land” really means. The MBPC should not support declaring a “surplus land” designation without getting a whole lot more information.
We don’t know what we don’t know and that is a terrible place to be when trying to make an informed decision of this significance and consequence- especially one that has the potential to forever change Mission Bay Park.
For example, this committee does not know what options may be available for getting an exemption to the Surplus Land Act for Mission Bay Park.
This committee has not seen the exemption request sought by the city from the state from declaring Mission Bay Park “surplus land” nor the response from any state agency, such as the state Housing and Community Development Department, to the city.
This committee does not know who came forward with the unsolicited proposal for Marina Village, when that proposal was made or been informed of the city’s response.
We all have a right to know the answers to these questions.
Therefore I am requesting that this committee:
Oppose declaring City-Owned Real Property within Mission Bay Park as Surplus Land
Thank you for your consideration and support of Mission Bay Park,
Donna Frye
As someone who’s kept a boat at Marina Village for over a decade, I’ve seen the property decline — especially under Kristopher Ingram’s management. It’s no longer serving the community or the waterfront it occupies.
I fully support the long-standing Mission Bay Master Plan, which already calls for a hotel at this site. It’s time for change — a new lease, better marina management, and investment that brings real value to the public.
This space has potential. Let’s move forward with a plan that aligns with the original vision for Mission Bay.
The original intent for Mission Bay was / is parkland for the people into perpetuity.
The 1994 Mission Bay Park Master Plan designates Quivira Basin as a commercial recreation zone, similar to the Dana and Bahia leaseholds. Hotels, marinas, and visitor-serving uses were always part of the plan. The guidelines stress public shoreline access, coastal landscaping, and recreational use — not just open parkland.
As you have said yourself, this area has failed as a “commercial recreation zone”, so maybe we should try it as parkland.
Fair point — we can definitely see it differently. I believe past mismanagement doesn’t mean we abandon the original intent. I support the Mission Bay Master Plan and trust the committee to guide what’s next.
6 days before our Independence Day Weekend we took a count of 288 seemingly permanently affixed motorhomes and campers residing throughout Mission Bay Park. Motorhome and trailers take 3-5 parallel parking spaces each. App 1200 parking spaces taken away from residents and tourists alike for the 4th of July and year round for that matter. This doesn’t even reflect the staggering number of unsheltered relegated to living in parked cars, vans, and trucks throughout the park year round.
Removing parking for a land grab is eliminating coastal access for all!
Ironically this is the only stretch of Mission Bay coastline not found to be polluted by the fireworks from Sea World.
With the information/documents that has been presented to me as it relates to Mission Bay Park parcels declared as “Surplus Land” I find it very troubling what is being proposed. I ask what’s next, Seaworld when their lease is up gets to build “Affordable Housing”. Then one must ask what area in Mission Bay Park is prime for redevelopment and has been all over the media in the last 5 plus years? De Anza Cove, could that be next? Could this be a pre-text for what’s to come in that area? We are treading into unchartered territory with to many unknowns and that’s why I will be a No vote at tonight’s meeting. I thank you Donna Frye for your leadership on this issue, Geoff Page and the OB Rag for bringing this issue forward to the public.
Giovanni Ingolia
Mission Bay Park Committee Rep District 2.
If votes are already decided before the meeting, it discourages public input and undermines the process. Why should the public attend, read the articles, or offer feedback if outcomes are predetermined? That’s exactly why transparency and open-minded discussion matter.
No one is saying “votes are already decided” except you. By Gio expressing his opinion on an important issue is in no way a decision by the entire committee. Nothing has been predetermined.
Fair — Gio doesn’t speak for the whole committee. But publicly announcing a “No” vote before the meeting sends a message that public input won’t change anything. That’s discouraging for people who take the time to stay informed and participate. And let’s be honest — you always jump into these threads, so acting like this isn’t a valid concern feels a little disingenuous.
Respectfully disagree. Gio has a free speech right and we — the public — deserve to know what our representatives think.
I respect your involvement and your right to share your views. But public meetings are meant for open dialogue—and announcing a vote beforehand, even from one member, gives the impression that input doesn’t matter. You already do a great job posting real-time updates and commenting on nearly every post, so I know you understand the process. I’m a boat tenant at one of the parcels and pay 10% to the city every month in slip rent. This is the only issue I’ve ever spoken up about — and I’m going to step away from the back-and-forth now.
Question: Is boat owner Bill the party who submitted a backroom proposal to the mayor to build a new hotel on the Marina Village site?
For the record, no — I am not a developer, hotel owner, or connected to any proposal involving Marina Village. I’m just a longtime San Diego resident and boat owner who wants to see long-neglected areas of Mission Bay improved in a way that honors both public access and the long-standing Mission Bay Master Plan.
I agreed with the stance against condo development and simply voiced support for following the Mission Bay Master Plan — the same plan shaped by the city and community stakeholders. I also disagreed with the suggestion that a vote would be cast before the public meeting — it felt performative. For raising these points, I was labeled as some sort of “backdoor developer,” which underscores the knee?jerk hostility that often replaces good-faith discussion here.
Frankly, it highlights the increasingly hateful way people speak to each other in this country — even among those who might otherwise share values. I’m not interested in debating this further. I’m simply sharing my experience and perspective. Take care.
It’s an internet thread and therefore to be expected. I’ve been insulted and by the same token have hurled my share of insults. Simply goes with the territory.