Marinapark’s future in voters’ hands

Alicia Robinson

Voters will get their say in November on the future of the

controversial Marinapark resort, but not before an expected vigorous,

take-no-prisoners campaign.

Developer Stephen Sutherland is pushing the plan for a 110-room

luxury, harbor-front resort with 12 timeshare units built on the

Balboa Peninsula between 15th and 18th streets. The city’s general

plan reserves the land for open space and recreation, although a

56-unit mobile home park occupies it.

After debating the project since signing an agreement with

Sutherland in 2000, the City Council on Tuesday voted to certify an

environmental report on the project and place the proposal on the

fall ballot. The 4-3 vote was taken around 1 a.m. with councilmen

John Heffernan, Dick Nichols and Don Webb voting against OKing the

report.

Residents’ frequently tenacious objections to the project have

covered a broad range of topics, but the main thrust has been that

the city shouldn’t turn recreation space over to a commercial use.

“Does this council wish to be remembered as one that sold the last

park site for profit?” resident Patricia Frostholm asked.

The resort project also would include renovations of the nearby

Girl Scout house and American Legion facilities, and city officials

have said the public still will have access to the waterfront there.

Among Marinapark supporters in the audience were representatives of

the American Legion and Orange County Girl Scout Council.

Most resort proponents urged the council to approve the

environmental report and place the issue on the ballot so voters can

decide its fate. Those against the Marinapark project have questioned

how much information will be available by the election.

After several hours of often-passionate public comments, council

members broke nearly even on the issue. The debate ultimately was a

semantic one, with council members splitting hairs about whether the

environmental report studied a “reasonable range” of alternatives for

the property and what the council’s certification of the

environmental report really means.

“I’m not approving [the resort], I’m only here to see if the

[environmental report] is adequate, and I feel comfortable in that,”

Mayor Tod Ridgeway said.

Webb said he didn’t think the report acknowledged the true loss of

recreational space the resort would cause, and Heffernan complained

that if the council hasn’t officially weighed in on the resort

project, it will be harder for voters to make sense of the 400-plus

page environmental report.

“I don’t think voters are going to know heads or tails what

they’re voting on,” he said.

They are assured of a vote, though. The council’s vote served to

certify the environmental report and resolved to place the proposal

-- which amounts to a change to the general plan -- on the Nov. 2

ballot.

The council also agreed to have council members write pro-and-con

arguments on the issue to be included in voter information. Ridgeway

said Wednesday it’s likely he will write the one in support of the

Marinapark project, but at this point he doesn’t think he’ll be

involved in campaigning for it.

The councilmen who voted against the environmental report may

collaborate with citizens’ groups on the opposing argument.

In the vigorous campaign against the project that all sides said

is coming, members of the slow-growth Greenlight group won’t be at

its head. Instead, a new group called Protect Our Parks, formed

solely to lobby against the Marinapark project, will launch what

group spokesman Tom Billings called “the mother of all campaign

battles.”

Sutherland said he’ll counter with a campaign to promote the

project to voters, and Billings said his group would lead the formal

opposition. Everyone who’s followed the project expects a hard fight,

including Ridgeway.

Right after the vote was taken early Wednesday morning, he summed

up the next stage of Marinapark: “The campaign is on.”

* ALICIA ROBINSON covers business, politics and the environment.

She may be reached at (949) 764-4330 or by e-mail at

[email protected].