Marinapark project battle goes public

Deirdre Newman

With less than two months before the November vote on the

controversial Marinapark hotel project, the battle has turned to the

court of public opinion.

While the campaign literature hasn’t hit the mailboxes yet, the

rhetoric is escalating between proponents of the development and

opponents, who prefer a park on the property.

Stephen Sutherland, who designed the project, calls the idea of a

park “a scheme” and compared it to the Great Park proposed by

opponents of an airport for the former El Toro Marine Corps Air

Station.

“They’re not being honest,” Sutherland said. “They’re using the

same trick [Irvine Mayor Larry] Agran and others used to kill the El

Toro [airport] plan. The last thing peninsula residents want is this

‘Great Park’ with a soccer field and a boat launch ramp.”

The opposition, led by a group called Protect our Parks, says a

park belongs on the property.

“Our campaign efforts to save Marinapark are not driven by money

or self-interest,” group leader Tom Billings said. “We are all

volunteers with the same visceral passion that harbor-front parkland

-- any park for that matter -- must be preserved for the public’s

use. The thought of losing a park to commercial development is like

losing a piece of one’s soul. We just can’t let that happen.”

The city-owned, harbor-front property where the hotel would be

located, on the Balboa Peninsula between the American Legion and 18th

Street, now accommodates a mobile home park, four tennis courts, a

basketball half-court, a community center and 21 parking spaces.

In addition to the proposed 110-room, luxury resort, the project

also includes a slew of community improvements, including relocating

and reconstructing the community center, the nearby Girl Scout house,

the tennis courts, a children’s playground, the public parking area

and a harborside walkway.

The proposed park would include an aquatic center, a tot lot, the

Girl Scout house, a soccer and T-ball field, the tennis courts, the

basketball half-court, plus 900 feet of beach, swimming and

small-boat rowing and sailing.

An open or shut case

Public access is one of the issues that defines the battle between

the proposed hotel and a park.

The hotel will offer some public access. The tennis courts there

now will remain; the hotel’s restaurant and bar will be open to the

public; and three paths will be created from the street to the beach.

The concrete walk along the beach will be reconfigured to give it

a more romantic feel, and the hedges will be taken out to offer more

view and to let people walk straight down to the beach, Sutherland

said. All the grounds of the hotel will be open to the public.

The hotel will also be accessible to the public by boat, with

guest docks for those visiting the hotel for a few hours. The area on

the nearby beach, where the city offers sailing lessons for kids,

will also remain.

“Residents can come down, play tennis for free, while their kids

or grandkids are taking sailing lessons, and when they’re done, they

can go to the restaurant or the bar or the beach and order lunch

(without alcohol),” Sutherland said. “It’s increasing the aquatic use

of the beach.”

Another contentious issue is parking. Sutherland is touting his

parking plan as having 100 more parking spaces than what’s required.

He accuses opponents of having no plan for parking.

“If they’re putting a boat storage facility equivalent to the

Newport Aquatic Center, soccer fields, a concert area, and a picnic

area, their parking structure must be four to five stories,”

Sutherland said. “I bet they don’t even know what their parking

requirement is.”

Billings said the group will consult a park planner to find out

how many parking spaces are required based on the size of the park.

WALKING THE TIDELANDS

The issue of tidelands still has not been resolved.

The state lands commission’s legal counsel has told the city it

believes a sizable portion of the land below the trailer park is

tidelands -- land the public must be able to get to that can only be

developed with uses that serve visitors, Asst. City Manager Dave Kiff

said.

Greenlight slow-growth spokesman Phil Arst, who opposes

Marinapark, claims that long-term timeshares are not permitted on

tidelands because they would be considered residences, not serving

visitors.

He added that the city should resolve the tidelands issue before

the election.

When the city selected Sutherland’s proposal during the bidding

process, it was chosen from a range of choices that were suitable

uses of tidelands, Kiff said.

It will be up to the commission’s attorneys to decide if the

timeshares included in the hotel qualify as ownership over the

tidelands, Kiff said.

DEFINING THE BENEFITS

One of the arguments against the project so far is the lack of a

lease. Opponents have argued that it’s difficult to assess the merits

of a project without the details of a lease.

City Manager Homer Bludau said former City Atty. Bob Burnham, who

is now working as a consultant, is working on the lease, and it

should be ready in about two weeks.

“There will be plenty of time to get that information out to the

public before the election,” Bludau said. “Certainly, it’s the intent

of the city to reach a lease agreement with Sutherland and let the

public know what the terms of that lease are.”

* DEIRDRE NEWMAN covers government. She may be reached at (949)

574-4221 or by e-mail at deirdre.newman@latimes.com.