Residents of Mission Bay are expressing strong opposition to a recent city proposal to designate three park properties as surplus land for the construction of a Marina Village hotel, raising fears of a potential housing land grab by developers.
The properties in question include Sportsmen’s Seafood and Dana Landing Marina, both of which currently have expired leases, along with Marina Village, a significant event venue that features a marina and conference center located at 1936 Quivira Way.
During the Mission Bay Park Committee meeting on August 5, members voted 7-2-1 against the city’s proposal, following a wave of public opposition that highlighted community distrust of the city’s intentions.
The proposal to lease or sell the three parcels after they have been declared surplus for over 15 years has been met with skepticism from residents, who argue that the city’s motives are questionable.
Under state law, once a property is declared surplus, the city is required to give priority to affordable housing developers for bidding opportunities. This stipulation has fueled the concerns of many community members.
Attorney Bob Ottilie, representing community sentiment, spoke at the Mission Bay Park Committee meeting, garnering applause as he expressed his views against housing development on the three parcels, although he supported commercial development like hotels.
The city, however, has claimed that there has been a misunderstanding regarding its intentions. Rachel Laing, Mayor Todd Gloria’s director of communications, described the state’s Surplus Lands Act requirements as part of a “complicated” situation.
Laing argued that the three parcels are financially underperforming and stated that Marina Village is designated in the Mission Bay Master Plan for a 500-room hotel and conference center, which underscores the city’s focus on attracting commercial development.
Further emphasizing the city’s stance, Laing insisted that there is no desire for housing to be developed on the properties and highlighted the problematic nature of the state requirements. She pointed out that, akin to the recent Civic Center redevelopment scenario, the city’s intention is to navigate the obligations of the Surplus Lands Act.
She stated, “We had to make the Civic Center available first for affordable housing under the Surplus Lands Act, and nobody bid on it. We had to do good-faith negotiations. It’s the same thing happening here.”
Laing clarified that securing an exemption from the Surplus Lands Act for Mission Bay parkland would not be possible, amplifying community anxieties regarding the future of the land.
Additionally, Laing explained that to advance housing development on Mission Bay properties, significant legal and regulatory hurdles would need to be overcome. Specifically, she noted that a City Charter amendment would be required since parkland cannot be repurposed for other uses.
Obtaining approval from the California Coastal Commission would also present a substantial challenge, especially given that developers would have to designate 25% of the units as affordable housing, a condition that could deter private developers.
Reiterating the city’s position, Laing acknowledged the public’s concerns surrounding housing in Mission Bay, stating, “People are saying, ‘Oh my God, the city wants to build housing in Mission Bay.’ We don’t believe housing makes sense there, that a housing project would pencil there.”
The Mission Bay Park properties’ designation as surplus land, which was previously postponed by the City Council, is set to be reconsidered in early September following the council’s break in August. As the situation unfolds, community members remain vigilant and concerned about the future of their beloved Mission Bay parks.
image source from：timesofsandiego
