Mission Bay Park is Not Surplus Land: A Noteworthy Update

By Donna Frye / October 1, 2025

On July 9, the OB Rag published an article by Geoff Page that alerted us to a city staff report that linked surplus lands with Mission Bay Park.

My initial reaction is the same now as it was then- Mission Bay Park is not “surplus land”.

The June 23, 2025 city staff report summarized the steps the city council was being asked to take to declare three properties in Mission Bay Park as “surplus land” so the city could seek new long-term leases. However, if the city council declared the properties as “surplus land” it would trigger a requirement in the Surplus Land Act that would allow housing development on our public parkland.

According to information published on the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s website, “The purpose of the Surplus Land Act is to connect local agencies with developers who are interested in building more affordable homes on surplus local public land that is both available and suitable for housing development.”

Mission Bay Park is neither available nor suitable for building housing because it is a dedicated public park.

Unfortunately, the Land Use and Housing Committee heard the item on July 2 and supported the “surplus land” declaration. Thankfully, at the July 29 city council meeting, the city council majority voted to continue the item until September due in large part to the public opposition.

And because of the continuance, the Mission Bay Park Committee was able to hear the item on August 5 at their regular meeting and voted not to support the “surplus land” declaration. If you recall, the committee had not been informed about the “surplus land” proposal in advance of it being heard at the Land Use and Housing Committee.

The continuance also gave the public time to understand  the issue, contact their elected officials, and obtain important documents that had not been released and were not available at any of the public hearings.

The documents were finally released on August 11 and August 26 as a result of Public Record Act requests. They included an unsolicited proposal  to build up to 900 housing units in addition to a hotel and conference center on the Marina Village property.

Additionally, the continuance provided opportunities for other media, such as The San Diego Union-Tribune, Times of San Diego, NBC Channel 7, CBS Channel 8 and Fox5 San Diego to join the OB Rag with expanded news coverage that increased public awareness about the issue.

All of these things helped change the city’s original course of action; we learned on Saturday, September 27 in The San Diego Union-Tribune that the mayor “…has withdrawn his effort to declare three commercial parcels in Mission Bay Park surplus property, a declaration that would have opened them to developers.”

Instead, “San Diego officials are working with state housing officials, the Governor’s Office and at least one state lawmaker for exemptions to the law.”

This is good news and it was gratifying to see the mayor support the public’s request and not declare Mission Bay Park as “surplus land”. We can take a moment to celebrate this small victory especially in today’s political climate. The community came together and made a difference.

However, the Mission Bay Park surplus land issue is far from over and this is just a temporary pause. There is no reason to believe the developers, Suntex and Stone, are no longer interested in building housing at Marina Village; we recently learned that they also hired lobbyists to meet with city officials to pitch their unsolicited proposal for Marina Village.

As this issue moves forward, we need to make sure that Mission Bay Park and other public parks in our city, county and state are not declared or even considered to be “surplus land” and used for private housing.

We need more information about whether the Surplus Land Act could be used to override voter-approved ballot measures such as City Charter Section 55 that defines allowable park uses and precludes private housing. I don’t know the answer, but I do know we need to find out.

Finally, we need to stay informed and keep supporting our local publications such as the OB Rag because I doubt that this issue would have seen the light of day had it not been for their bringing it to our attention.