AB 2525 adds Government Code Section 54222.3.2 to exempt lands comprising Mission Bay Park from the statutory procedures that govern disposal of surplus public land. The exemption applies only to parcels held for park, recreation, and public trust purposes as of January 1, 2026, and uses the City of San Diego’s Mission Bay Park Master Plan Update (1994, updated 2002) as the definitional boundary.
Because the state’s surplus‑land law requires agencies to declare surplus property and provide written notice to specified entities (including housing sponsors) before disposal, this targeted exemption removes those statutory notice-and-offer obligations for Mission Bay Park parcels. The bill also includes a legislative finding invoking the constitutional special‑statute exception, citing the need to improve economic opportunities in Mission Bay Park for San Diego residents.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a statutory exemption for Mission Bay Park from the Government Code article that governs surplus public lands, so the City of San Diego and the San Diego Unified Port District are not bound by the article’s notice, declaration, and offer procedures for affected parcels held for park, recreation, or public trust uses as of Jan. 1, 2026. It defines Mission Bay Park by reference to the City’s 1994 Master Plan Update and its 2002 update.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are the City of San Diego and the San Diego Unified Port District, which jointly steward Mission Bay Park parcels. Indirectly affected stakeholders include local commercial tenants and event operators in the park, affordable‑housing sponsors and advocacy groups that rely on surplus‑land offers, and state agencies that monitor public‑land disposition.
Why It Matters
The exemption narrows a statewide pro‑housing mechanism that channels surplus public land toward housing sponsors and prioritized entities. For local officials and commercial operators, the change increases flexibility over park land management and potential revenue opportunities; for housing and public‑trust advocates it removes a procedural check and a predictable pathway to site acquisition.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2525 operates as a surgical change to California’s surplus‑land framework: rather than amending the Article broadly, it creates a single, site‑specific statutory carve‑out for Mission Bay Park. Under current law, when a public agency determines land is no longer needed for its governmental purpose it must follow Article rules—make written findings, declare the parcel surplus or exempt‑surplus, and provide notice of availability to a defined set of entities and housing sponsors before disposing or negotiating to dispose.
The new Section 54222.3.2 removes those procedural obligations for park parcels identified by the bill.
The bill ties that exemption to three concrete boundaries. First, it limits the carve‑out to lands “comprising Mission Bay Park” as identified in the City of San Diego’s Mission Bay Park Master Plan Update adopted in 1994 and updated in 2002.
Second, it confines the exemption to parcels that were held for park, recreation, and public trust purposes as of January 1, 2026. Third, it specifies that the exemption applies to lands under the stewardship of the City of San Diego and the San Diego Unified Port District, making clear that both local stewards can act without triggering the state Article’s notice and offer processes.Beyond the exemption mechanics, AB 2525 includes a legislative finding invoking the Section 16 special‑statute doctrine of the California Constitution.
That language is a preemptive rationale: the Legislature asserts that a targeted statute is necessary because a general statute cannot address the unique economic circumstances of Mission Bay Park. Practically, that finding signals the drafters expect the provision to withstand challenges based on the special‑legislation prohibition and frames the bill as an economic‑development tool for San Diego.In practice, the exemption alters predictable transaction paths.
Parcels inside the defined Mission Bay Park area that meet the use and date thresholds will no longer trigger the state’s surplus‑land notification pipeline that typically routes opportunities to housing sponsors or other prioritized public bodies. The change therefore reduces one administrative hurdle for local management, leasing, redevelopment, or partnership arrangements, while simultaneously removing a statutory conduit that housing developers and community groups have used to access public land for housing and other public purposes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2525 adds Government Code Section 54222.3.2 to exempt designated Mission Bay Park lands from the state surplus‑land article’s declaration, notice, and offer requirements.
The exemption applies only to parcels held for park, recreation, and public trust purposes as of January 1, 2026.
The bill defines ‘Mission Bay Park’ by reference to the City of San Diego’s Mission Bay Park Master Plan Update (adopted Aug. 1, 1994; updated July 9, 2002).
The exemption expressly covers lands under the stewardship of both the City of San Diego and the San Diego Unified Port District.
The Legislature includes a Section 16 special‑statute finding, asserting a need for a site‑specific law to improve economic opportunities in Mission Bay Park.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Exemption of Mission Bay Park parcels from the surplus‑land article
This subsection is the operative carve‑out: it states that lands comprising Mission Bay Park and under the stewardship of the City of San Diego and the San Diego Unified Port District are exempt from the referenced article of the Government Code. The practical import is that those parcels will not be subject to the statutory process that otherwise governs disposal or negotiation to dispose of surplus public land, including the notice and offer obligations that channel opportunities to housing sponsors and other entities.
Definition of Mission Bay Park by Master Plan reference
Subsection (b) pins the spatial boundary of the exemption to the Mission Bay Park Master Plan Update adopted by the City Council in 1994 and updated in 2002. Rather than listing parcel numbers or a legislative map, the statute adopts the local master plan as the controlling definition—this makes the Master Plan the primary interpretive tool and could import uncertainties where the plan’s geographic delineations or later amendments are in dispute.
Special‑statute justification invoking Article IV, Section 16
This section records the Legislature’s determination that a special law is necessary for Mission Bay Park and that a general statute cannot address the local economic objectives at issue. That finding is both rhetorical and legal: it supplies a constitutional justification for the site‑specific exemption, which may be important if the measure is litigated under the state constitution’s anti‑special‑legislation clause.
Use‑and‑date limitations and stewardship tie
Taken together the provisions limit the exemption to parcels that were used for park, recreation, or public trust purposes by Jan. 1, 2026, and that are held by the City or the Port District. That creates a bright cutoff: parcels converted to non‑park uses after that date fall outside the exemption; likewise, parcels not under those two stewards remain subject to the Article. Implementation will require administrative coordination to identify qualifying parcels.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- City of San Diego — Gains discretion to manage, lease, redevelop, or transfer qualifying Mission Bay Park parcels without following the surplus‑land notice and offer procedures, enabling faster local decision‑making and potentially new revenue or partnership arrangements.
- San Diego Unified Port District — Shares the same procedural flexibility as the City, which can simplify joint projects, commercial leasing, and waterfront programming that touch park parcels.
- Existing commercial tenants and event operators in Mission Bay Park — May see reduced procedural friction for lease restructuring or concessions because local stewards can act without triggering statewide surplus‑land processes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Affordable‑housing sponsors and nonprofit developers — Lose a predictable statutory pathway (notice and first‑look opportunities) to acquire public land inside the defined park for housing projects.
- Housing and community advocates — Face reduced transparency and fewer formal opportunities to review or bid on surplus park parcels, limiting advocacy leverage and inflow of proposals for community‑serving uses.
- State oversight entities and taxpayers — May incur administrative and oversight challenges if disputes arise over which parcels qualify, and the exemption could reduce state leverage to repurpose public land to meet broader housing policy goals.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether local flexibility to manage and economically activate Mission Bay Park should trump a statewide law designed to prioritize public land for housing and public‑interest uses: the bill grants local stewards discretion to pursue immediate economic opportunities, but in doing so removes a predictable, transparent channel that historically directed surplus public lands toward housing and other community priorities.
AB 2525 raises several implementation and legal questions likely to surface if the bill is used to change ownership, use, or management of park parcels. First, the bill defines the exemption by reference to a local master plan rather than by parcel identifiers, which requires agencies to interpret plan boundaries and may invite disputes where the plan’s map or text is ambiguous, where later local amendments occurred, or where the physical footprint of park parcels has changed over time.
Absent a requirement to publish a qualifying parcel list, affected parties will need to rely on local determinations to know whether a specific parcel is exempt.
Second, the exemption sits in tension with the surplus‑land article’s statewide objective of making surplus public land available to prioritized entities, especially for housing. Removing that procedural route reduces transparency and a statutory check that channels public land toward housing or other public purposes.
The bill’s Section 16 finding signals awareness of potential constitutional challenge under the prohibition on special legislation, but invoking that doctrine does not eliminate litigation risk—courts will still assess whether the means are appropriately tailored to a legitimate local need. Finally, the exemption does not address how public‑trust obligations over tidelands or submerged lands will be maintained if the City or Port use the exemption to pursue commercial arrangements; public‑trust duties operate under separate doctrines and could constrain transfers despite the statutory carve‑out.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.