Assemblymember Ward Introduces Legislation to Protect Mission Bay Park and an Update on City Leases for Dana Landing and Sportsmen’s Seafood
By Donna Frye
It’s a nice change to write about something that is good, respects the public’s concerns, and protects and preserves dedicated public parkland. It’s not a usual occurrence which makes it all the more welcome.
The good news is that Assemblymember Chris Ward introduced legislation (AB 2525) on February 20, 2026 to exempt all of Mission Bay Park from the State Surplus Land Act.
Even though it has to go through various legislative committees and the governor needs to sign it to become law, I am optimistic that Mission Bay Park will be protected and preserved as the voters intended it to be. It will also eliminate any conflicts between the San Diego City Charter and the Surplus Land Act.
For those who may not be aware of why this is such good news, here is some background about how we got here.
The Surplus Land Act regulations required the city to prioritize and allow affordable housing in Mission Bay Park in order to lease certain park properties for a period that exceeded 15 years. The San Diego City Charter does not allow housing on dedicated public parkland without a public vote so there was an immediate conflict created between the two laws. It is unclear if the Surplus Land Act regulations would override the San Diego City Charter.
The mayor’s staff, based upon the guidance they received from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) decided the best course of action was to offer up the three properties for lease using the Surplus Land Act requirements. Those properties were Marina Village, Sportsmen’s Seafood and Dana Landing Marina which are all part of Mission Bay Park.
The problem was, it meant that housing developers would get first priority to propose building affordable housing projects in Mission Bay Park and the city would be required to negotiate in good faith to allow it.
On July 2, 2025, the Land Use and Housing Committee approved declaring the three properties in Mission Bay Park as surplus land. The item was then scheduled for a city council meeting where it would be placed on the consent agenda.
On July 9, the OB Rag published a story by Geoff Page that alerted the public to what was happening.
It would be an understatement to say that the public did not support declaring Mission Bay Park as surplus land. For the next 20 days, they let the mayor and city council know they opposed it.
On July 29, a city council majority voted to continue Item 105 which would have declared the three properties ( Marina Village, Sportsmen’s Seafood and Dana Landing) in Mission Bay Park as surplus land. Councilmember Von Wilpert pulled the item from the consent agenda so it could be discussed and Councilmember Campillo made the motion to continue the item.
At that hearing, Campillo asked if there had been any interest shown in the properties and the mayor’s staff said that yes, they had received a proposal. The mayor’s staff did not disclose to the public or city council any information about the proposal.
On August 5, 2025, the Mission Bay Park Committee heard the item and voted to oppose declaring Mission Bay Park as surplus land. The Mission Bay Park Committee had not been given the opportunity to participate before the item was heard at the city council. That changed only because the city council voted to continue the item and made sure the Mission Bay Park Committee was included in the ongoing process.
On August 28, due to a Public Records Act request, I was able to obtain a copy of the “unsolicited proposal” that had been sent to the mayor’s staff. It included building 900 housing units at Marina Village.
Even though the mayor’s office continued to state they had no intention of allowing housing to be built in Mission Bay Park, their failure to disclose the “unsolicited proposal” without someone having to file a Public Records Act request, only added to the public’s mistrust, including my own.
For the next two months, the public stayed engaged and active and requested that the city council amend the language in their Legislative Platform to seek an exemption to the Surplus Land Act for Mission Bay Park.
On November 5, 2025, the Economic Development and Intergovernmental Relations (ED & IR) Committee voted on Campillo’s motion to support legislation that would amend the Surplus Land Act to exempt Mission Bay Park. https://obrag.org/2025/11/city-council-committee-votes-to-support-amending-the-state-surplus-land-act-to-protect-mission-bay-park/
On December 17, 2025 a city council majority voted to adopt the updated Legislative Priorities for 2026 and include the language supported by the ED & IR Committee to exempt Mission Bay Park from the Surplus Land Act.
On February 20, 2026 Assemblymember Chris Ward introduced legislation (AB 2525) to exempt Mission Bay Park from the State Surplus Land Act.
On March 6, we learned from Inside San Diego, that Mayor Gloria is “sponsoring state legislation- AB 2525, authored by Assemblymember Chris Ward -that would fully exempt Mission Bay from the Surplus Land Act to ensure it is abundantly clear that housing does not belong within Mission Bay.”
That’s good news.
We also learned that the city has issued a request for proposals (RFPs) for two of the three properties in Mission Bay Park (Dana Landing and Sportsmen’s Seafood) that were previously considered for lease under the Surplus Land Act. The lease duration for both RFPs does not exceed 15 years so neither triggers the Surplus Land Act.
And here we are.
There’s still a lot to be done to make sure AB 2525 becomes law, but considering where we started, this legislation gives me some hope. It confirms that public participation can and does make a difference and that protecting and preserving our public parkland is an issue that has the potential to bring us together.
But we still need to stay informed as the new RFPs for Dana Landing and Sportsmen’s Seafood move through the city process. The responses to the RFPs are due back to the city by April 30 and will need to be heard at city council before being approved.
Wouldn’t it be nice if both RFPs were heard at the Mission Bay Park Committee to allow the public to weigh in before they are heard by the city council? Hope springs eternal, but I am not placing any bets just yet.
Thank you so much Donna and Assembly Member Chris Ward. Very good news.
The Surplus Land Act requires surplus public property to be used for Affordable Housing, Park and Recreation districts, or Open Space.
Government Code Sections 54220-54234
Affordable Housing projects are not a given, only an option for Surplus Lands along with Park and Recreation Districts or Open Space, especially in the coastal zone.
Thank you Donna, for defending public parkland in Mission Bay Park. It remains to be seen however, if this legislation will make any difference one way or the other. Legislation was passed in 1981 (Kapiloff bill, ab 447) that, among other things, mandated the closure of Campland at the end of it’s original 50 year lease. Chris Ward, himself, voted to extend the lease when he was on the city council. It’s nice to pass laws, but it doesn’t do much good if they aren’t followed. This law was important because Campland and it’s marina are blocking the fresh water from Rose Creek, so that it doesn’t get to the last remaining 1% of marshland in Mission Bay. Consequently the marsh is dying. That isn’t my opinion, it’s the opinion of the UCSD Reserve System, who manages the Kendall-Frost Marsh. All of this has been known for a long time, and that’s why the area (Campland) has been slated for salt marsh restoration in the last three Mission Bay Park Masterplans.
Correction: it’s the University of California Reserve System.
John – I’ve been trying to figure out your previous reference to the 1981 Kapiloff bill and Campland’s lease. Guess my brain has slowed down with age; it took until your comment here to realize that you’ve mixed up the Campland lease and the De Anza Resort lease. There is a nexus but the Kapiloff bill was specific to the De Anza Resort lease.
The city had allowed a 1950s lease for an RV park on dedicated park land to evolve into a full-time residential mobile home park on De Anza Point. This was discovered by, I think, the City Attorney’s Office, circa 1979. At that time, owners of the mobile homes (which still retained tires and were still required to be licensed by CA DMV) subleased the ground beneath from the master lessee, and residents were largely retirees on fixed incomes. Some contacted Senator Kapiloff (despite this not being in his legislative district) and persuaded him to submit a bill “legalizing” the term of the master lease thus the subleases until expiration of the master lease in November, 2013.
As the City has too often done, they did not contest the bill, the bill passed, and residents of De Anza Resort were given the right to remain until late 2013, after which they were required to leave and to remove their mobile homes.
Then the state legislature passed a law requiring property owners who wanted to change the use of their mobile home park in order to build housing, to pay for a “impact statement” relative on residents who would have to move, and to pay residents some compensation to assist in moving elsewhere. Several of the mobile home owners at De Anza filed suit against the City demanding an “impact statement” and compensation under this law. Litigation resulted in a settlement in which $30 million was to be shared among residents.
There does remain a small portion of RV park on De Anza Point, a legal use of dedicated park land.
Coming back around to the Campland lease extension you refer to… the expectation has long been that the Campland use would transition to De Anza Point after the mobile home park was removed. It turned out that it would be a long, long time before that would be possible (another very long story), so until that could happen, the Campland lease was extended, then extended again. We are still waiting for the De Anza Natural amendment to the Mission Bay Park Master Plan to reach final approval. Once approved by the Coastal Commission, improvements can begin at De Anza Point.
I’m not holding my breath but do believe we’ll get there someday. Once that occurs, the current Campland location is to be dredged to return wetland, once again connecting the Kendall-Frost/Mission Bay Marsh to Rose Creek.
You are entirely correct as to the history of the De Anza Point lease and it’s disposition. But the same Kapiloff bill that allowed the residents to stay until the end of the lease in 2013 also said that the provisions of the ’78 masterplan that relate to Campland and De Anza Point, shall stay in place. They can therefore, only be changed by an act of the state legislature or the courts, but not the city council. The ’78 masterplan had strict deadlines for the opening of De Anza Point to the public. Campland was given a chance to move to De Anza Point if they had a plan in place to move there, with all the shorelines open to the public, by the end of their original lease. If, however, they chose to stay in their present location until the lease ran out, the whole area, including Campland and the entire De Anza Point, all the way out to North Mission Bay drive, would revert to public beach and park land, open to all of the public, for recreation, and for no other use whatsoever. This was all laid out in a memorandum by John Witt, the city attorney during the O’Connor administration. It used to be on the city’s website but has probably been removed by now. It is obvious that Campland has stayed way beyond the original lease and any and all lease extensions are now illegal under the law. The reason that the law has not been followed is obviously the six million dollars or so that flow to the black hole downtown from these two leaseholds. Can you imagine if the city didn’t get that money? Gee, they might go broke! Oh, wait they are broke.
Anyway Judy, although we disagree on the legality of the city’s actions, we do share the hope that some day, some way, we will restore the mouth of Rose Creek and save 2% of the original marshlands in Mission Bay. That is probably all that can be restored and maintained because Rose Creek is the only significant source of fresh water in the bay. Do not believe the number of acres to be restored under the so called De Anza Natural plan. This plan is not science based and the restoration of wetlands in De Anza Cove is not realistic. It won’t work because it has no fresh water. I might add that it will be very unpopular because the public will lose half a mile of sandy beach.
The Coastal Commission does not have the final say on De Anza, that will be the State Lands Commission. Remember that it was the lands commission that found the trailer park to be an illegal use, triggering the whole chain of events including the Kapiloff bill.
Thank you Donna for this update and your continued work keeping the public informed.
Mission Bay Park is one of San Diego’s most important public spaces, and it’s encouraging to see progress toward protecting it. Where we build matters, and dedicated parkland should remain protected for recreation, coastal access, and future generations.
Donna – thank you for the recap and update. The OB Rag did previously cover Chris Ward’s bill for removing Mission Bay Park from jurisdiction of the Surplus Lands Act.
A thought occurred to me – if the Surplus Lands declaration had succeeded, wouldn’t there still be a citywide vote, 2/3 approval required, to legitimize a change from dedicated parkland to a different, non-parkland use as required in Section 55 of the City Charter? Hopefully, Chris’s bill will pass & the governor will sign it, so I hope my question becomes moot.