By Donna Frye
After reading Jeff McDonald’s article in the Sunday, August 31 San Diego Union-Tribune (and in today’s Rag here), one of the first things that came to mind was why wasn’t the proposal (that includes building 900 residential units on dedicated public parkland) shared with the public or city council?
Does it bother or concern any of the city council members that this information was withheld from them and the public, and was only recently disclosed because of a Public Records Act request?
Have they considered what could happen in light of this new information?
Right now, the mayor and city do not have to enter into lease negotiations with any developers who want to build housing in Mission Bay Park. There is no law requiring them to do so.
However, it the city council goes along with the mayor’s request and declares the three properties in Mission Bay Park “surplus land” that changes immediately.
The Surplus Land Act requires the city to send out a Notice of Availability to housing developers who would get first priority for their development proposals. We now know that there is at least one developer who wants to build housing and would likely respond to the Notice of Availability.
That would require the city to consider the developer’s housing proposal and negotiate in good faith or face potential litigation. That is the absurd law that would be triggered if the city council declared properties in Mission Bay Park “surplus land”. The city would have no choice but to negotiate.
The mayor’s spokesperson implied that even if a housing proposal came forward, not to worry, because City Charter Section 55 “…protects the park properties from residential development and can only be overruled by a two-thirds vote by the public…”.
I wish I had some faith in that being a true statement, and maybe under different circumstances, I might believe that a voter-approved ballot measure could only be changed by the voters.
Unfortunately, I have watched the public vote be overridden by Sacramento legislators and housing staff who claim that they have the right to ignore the will of the voters because “housing is a matter of statewide concern.”
For example, in 2022 the Department of Housing and Community Development issued a Letter of Technical Assistance to the City of San Diego in response to a project applicant’s question about voter approved initiatives.
It posed the following question:
“Is a development standard created by voter initiative immune from the requirements of the state Density Bonus Law?”
The short answer was “No. The State Legislature can and does preempt local initiatives.”
The voter initiative in question was the 1972 voter-approved 30-foot height limit in the coastal zone. Prop D passed with over 60 percent of the votes and has been the law for over 50 years.
However, it appears that because housing is a “matter of statewide concern”, the will of the voters is preempted and the applicant who submitted the request for technical assistance is now in the process of building a project that exceeds the 30-foot, voter-approved height limit.
The people who voted in 1972 were disrespected and ignored because there was no public vote on whether the measure should be overturned over 50 years later. It just got “preempted” which is truly shameful and flies in the face of our basic democratic principles.
I had no idea that a simple “Letter of Technical Assistance” from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in Sacramento could legally wipe out a voter-approved ballot measure that had been in place for so many decades, but what do I know?
Link to Letter of Technical Assistance https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sdisandiego-ta-061022.pdf
So despite the assurances from the mayor and his staff that a “two-thirds vote by the public” would be required, I remain skeptical to say the least.
What’s to stop a housing developer from using the same or similar argument that “preempted” the 30-foot, voter-approved height limit by asking HCD to issue another “letter” that would bulldoze our voter-approved City Charter Section 55?
If housing were to be allowed in Mission Bay Park, especially without a public vote, what would happen to our other dedicated public parklands throughout the city? Could they also be made available for housing development?
This has far-reaching consequences that have not yet been addressed or discussed in public meetings. It could be resolved, however, by working with our state legislators to amend the Surplus Land Act as Councilmember Marni von Wilpert proposed and Councilmember Campbell seconded at the July 29 city council meeting. Fix the law so that it does not apply to any dedicated public parkland.
I am very appreciative that the city council voted to support a continuance at the July 29 meeting. It allowed us to better understand the consequences of declaring properties in Mission Bay Park as surplus land and get copies of documents that had not been disclosed to the public.
It allowed the Mission Bay Park Committee to participate and vote in opposition to declaring three properties in Mission Bay surplus land. If you recall, the committee was never consulted prior to the issue being heard at city council.
But at this point, given what we have learned in the past few weeks about the Surplus Land Act and the unsolicited development and housing proposal, the solution that seems to make the most sense is to amend the Surplus Land Act. We need to protect and preserve our dedicated parklands, not just in Mission Bay, but throughout our city.
Hello Joe? Joe LaCava? Are you there? Are you listening? Joe?
I agree with Donna. Let’s amend the Surplus Land Act to not apply to dedicated park land, but we also need better vision and oversight of Mission Bay than we’re getting now. I’ve always wondered why Marina Village hasn’t risen to its potential as a Seaport Village-style space, with retail shops and restaurants, an open air seafood market, and a conference/banquet center beautifully located on Mission Bay. I think the answer is that the San Diego Port Authority owns and controls Seaport Village, whereas the City of San Diego owns and controls Marina Village, Sportsmen’s Seafood, and Dana Landing Marina.
So, yes, amend the state Surplus Land Act, but let’s establish a Mission Bay Authority whose job is to protect the people’s interest in our coastline! Clearly our mayor cannot be trusted to do so, based on his sneaky attempt to fire-sell the heart and soul of Mission Bay as “Surplus land!” Thankfully seven council members voted to delay. Please do not sell our waterfront–we don’t need more hotels on Mission Bay. Rather, let’s make our marinas into vibrant public gathering spaces for San Diegans and tourists.
Donna,
I, for one person appreciate your translation, into common English, the political issues you comment on. The mayor and city council seem to keep anything they KNOW will get the residents in an uproar, hidden, decided behind closed doors, no community input, they don’t recommend all new construction be presented to the appropriate Planning Committee Group any more, it doesn’t go before the Planning Commission, any more, and it doesn’t go before the council anymore. This mayor has rigged the game so the only thing going to Planning Committees are waivers that are too far gone to make any changes. Ex: Permits for Apts., then when they’re almost finished they appear before the PCG’s to get a recommendation to change the construction from apts. to Condo’s. Reminds of a classic bait and switch. Hopefully the voters elect the mayor and council reps with common sense, finance savvy, and truly represent the constituents wants.