Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mission Bay Surplus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Diego council pauses plan to label Mission Bay leaseholds ‘surplus land’ after heated public outcry
Summary
Council continued action on a staff proposal to declare three Mission Bay leaseholds surplus under California''s Surplus Land Act after hours of public comment and competing motions; opponents warned of risking park access and coastal protections and asked for more committee review.
City staff asked the City Council on July 29 to declare three leasehold parcels in Mission Bay Park "surplus land" to comply with the California Surplus Land Act and enable future long‑term leases. Economic development program manager Jim Manler and assistant deputy director Mary Carlson told the council the step is procedural: declaring parcels surplus would begin a state‑prescribed notice and 90‑day good‑faith negotiation process and does not itself authorize any lease or change of park dedication.
The proposal drew immediate and forceful public resistance. The deputy clerk reported 37 e‑comments in opposition and dozens of in‑chamber speakers urged delay. Longtime Mission Bay advocates pressed the council to send the item back to the Mission Bay Park Committee and the Park and Recreation Board for more public review, arguing the parcels have been dedicated for park and recreation uses and that the city should guard against perceived hasty handling and the appearance that public parkland could be repurposed.
Council debate produced sharply different approaches. Councilmember Von Wilpert moved to deny the staff recommendation and to direct the mayor''s office to seek exemptions or legislative relief from HCD, saying Mission Bay is public parkland that should not be subjected to the surplus‑land process. Councilmember Campbell seconded that motion and warned that the Surplus Land Act, as interpreted by Sacramento, could threaten park protections. By contrast, Council President Pro Tem Lee argued the city must follow state law if it wants to secure long‑term leases and the capital investment they can produce; Lee offered a substitute motion to proceed with the surplus declaration while strengthening the notice language and committing to additional public engagement and explicit statements about existing charter and Coastal Act encumbrances.
After additional public testimony and amendment attempts, Councilmember Campillo moved — and Councilmember Whitburn seconded — a motion to continue the item so staff could present to the Mission Bay Park Committee and provide further legal and procedural analysis. The council approved the continuance on a 7–1 vote (Councilmember Von Wilpert voting no), with one member absent. Council members said they want more time to reconcile competing priorities: protecting dedicated parkland and its public access while avoiding ongoing maintenance costs from underperforming leaseholds and exploring whether long‑term leases could produce capital investment that benefits the park.
What happens next: staff will return to committee and then to council in September with additional analysis, including a clearer draft notice of availability that will enumerate charter restrictions, coastal and state encumbrances, and expectations for proposers. The continuation leaves the parcels in City ownership and in their current uses while the city pursues additional public outreach and options.
