HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - Marinapark Resort ProjectCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 20
February 25, 2003
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Attorneys Office
Robert Bumham, City Attorney
644 -3131, rburnham @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Marinapark Resort Project
Recommendations of Ad Hoc Council Committee
Proposed Conceptual Approval of Project Description
Proposed Amendment to Sutherland Talla Hospitality Agreement
ISSUES:
1. Should the City Council direct staff to prepare amendments to the agreement
between the City and Sutherland Talla Hospitality (STH) consistent with some or
all of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee?
2. Should the City Council approve the STH site plan submitted on January 13 (a
resort with 110 rooms and small marina) as the "Project' solely for purposes of
compliance with CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION (From the Ad Hoc Committee):
1. Direct the City Attorney to prepare amendments to the existing STH Agreement
that would (a) confirm that the City will prepare an EIR for the Project; (b)
establish a process whereby the Project would be submitted to the voters in
November 2004 after the EIR is certified, and any related reports are reviewed,
by the City Council.
2. Approve, solely for purposes of CEQA compliance, the proposed site plan (110
room hotel /resort and marina) as the "final project description."
BACKGROUND:
Marinapark is a parcel of tidelands and /or uplands located on the Balboa Peninsula. The
majority of Marinapark has been developed as a mobile home park and the remainder is
improved with tennis courts, the American Legion Hall and community buildings. The
Land Use Element (LUE) and the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program (LCP)
state that Marinapark:
"...is designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space, and is proposed
to be ultimately used for aquatic facilities, expanded beach and community facilities
such as the existing American Legion. The existing mobile home park use will be
allowed to continue until the end of the existing lease. At that time the City will
make the decision as to whether the lease should be further extended, or the
property converted to public use."
The "Estimated Growth" table in the LUE assumes elimination of the 58 mobile home
units, indicates that 7,000" square feet of commercial floor area exists as of 1/1/87
(probably the American Legion) and projects growth of 3,000 square feet. Properb,t
designated as "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" can be used for a wide
range of public and /or private open space uses including parks ... golf courses, yacht
clubs... private recreation facilities... and landscaped areas." (LUE, page 26)
In 1985, the City Council gave Marinapark tenants a 15 -year lease that limited rent
increases to the "CPI" in consideration of the tenants' waiver of any entitlement to
relocation benefits if the City closed the park and converted the land to a public recreation
use. The City Council extended the lease for two years in 2000 and recently gave the
tenants a one -year rental agreement.
In 2000, the City issued requests for proposals for the redevelopment_ of Marinapark in
anticipation of the ultimate closure of the mobile home park and to conform the use to
tidelands trust restrictions. The City received a number of proposals and ultimately
selected a proposal submitted by Sutherland/Talla to develop the site with a "five star"
resort. On December 11, 2000, the City and STH entered into an agreement (STH
Agreement) that gave STH the "exclusive right' to negotiate a ground lease with the City if
they received all necessary permits and approvals for the resort.
On January 22, 2002, the City Council approved initiation of amendments to General
Plan consistent with the "development of a 147 -room hotel resort complex." On
February 19, 2002 the City Manager approved STH's request for a six -month extension
of the deadline to submit planning documents and an economic analysis. On March 12,
2002,. the City Council approved the "First Amendment" to the STH Agreement —
extending the City's deadline for preparing an Initial Study until 30 days after submittal
of the planning documents. On October 16, 2002, the City Manager approved STH's
request to extend the deadline for submittal of planning documents to January 13, 2003.
STH submitted all required documents on January 13, 2002. The City Council
appointed the Ad Hoc Committee (Mayor Bromberg, Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway and
Council Member Webb) on February 11, 2003.
STH has submitted the planning and zoning documents required by the STH Agreement
but the documents propose construction of a 110 -room hotel /resort and a small manna
(copies of the site plan are attached as Exhibit A). STH also proposes to rebuild the Girl
Scout facility along the west side of the property and reconstruct existing tennis courts on
top of a partially subterranean parking structure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approval of Final Project Description
The Ad Hoc Committee recommends the City Council approve the STH site plan
submitted on January 13, 2003 (a resort hotel with 110 rooms) as the "final project
description" (STH Project) as specified in the STH Agreement. This Council action does
nothing more than to establish a "stable and finite project description" for purposes of
preparing an EIR that fully complies with CEQA. The City has the right and duty, in
conjunction with the approval of the EIR, to modify the STH Project or impose
conditions to mitigate any significant effects of the project. Moreover, assuming the
Project receives all necessary approvals, the City Council retains all rights to modify the
Project (so long as the modifications are covered by the analysis in the EIR) prior to
approving any ground lease because we are the owner /grantee of the property.
2. Amendments of STH Agreement
The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the City Council direct the City Attorney to
prepare amendments to the existing STH Agreement that would (a) confirm that the City
will prepare an EIR for the Project; and (b) establish a process whereby the Project
would be submitted to the voters in November 2004 after the EIR is certified, and any
related reports are reviewed, by the City Council. The Ad Hoc Committee believes this
process is consistent with the spirit of Measure S (Section 423 of the Charter), will
ensure that the voters have all relevant information regarding the benefits and impacts
of the Project before the election, and will ensure that Project is considered by the
voters at an election where the turnout is likely to be very high.
The Ad Hoc Committee believes that the Project involves unique factors that warrant
submittal to the voters even though Section 423 of the Charter may not require voter
approval.' Committee members identified the following as unique factors that warrant
submittal of the Project to the voters: (a) the property is owned by, or has been granted
to, the City; (b) a portion of the site is tidelands; (c) the most appropriate use of the site
has been debated for more than 30 years; (d) the property, while developed as a mobile
The Measure S Guidelines (Council Policy A -18) state that:
"In the event the Entitlement for a Non - residential Use is designated in terms other than Floor
Area (such as hotel rooms or boat slips) the determination as to whether the Amendment requires
voter approval shall be based solely on the differential in Peak Hour Trips."
The LUE entitles parcels devoted solely to hotel use, such as the Newport Marriott, the Radisson and the
Four Seasons, in terms of rooms rather than floor area. In cases involving parcels with office and hotel
uses, such as KCN Office Site A (Sutton Place), the LUE specifies the hotel use in terms of rooms and
the office use in terms of floor area. Hotels located in older commercial areas such as the Balboa Inn in
Balboa Village have no specific room or floor area entitlement. Assuming the STH Project was "entitled"
in terms of rooms, preliminary studies suggest that the resort hotel would generate less than 50 peak
hour trips and no Measure S election would be required based on Council Policy A -18.
home park for many years, is designated as recreational and environmental open
space; and (e) even with a floor area ratio less than .3, the Section 423 floor area
threshold (40,000 square feet) is exceeded. The Ad Hoc Committee also
recommended that the Project be considered, but not approved or disapproved, by the
Planning Commission and City Council before submittal to the voters.
City Council submittal of the Project to the voters must be accompanied by an
environmental document.2 The Ad Hoc Committee believes that an EIR should be
prepared for the project so that the voters are fully informed about the environmental
impacts, if any, and the mitigation measures that are incorporated into the Project prior
to submittal to the voters. The City Council also has the authority, pursuant to State
law, to prepare reports on the fiscal impact of the project for consideration by the voters.
The Agreement requires STH to pay the cost of preparing the required environmental
document but the Committee believes that it may be appropriate for the City to
reimburse STH for some of those costs if the City uses the EIR in conjunction with other
decisions related to the site. The EIR must include alternatives to the Project including
a "no project" alternative that would evaluate retention of the mobile home park and the
"recrprMional and environmental open space" designation.
Burnham
2 The Ad Hoc Committee discussed the fact that the Project could be the subject of an initiative petition.
Assuming the proponents obtained the requisite number of signatures on the petition, the Project could
be submitted to the voters without the benefit of any environmental analysis. The process recommended
by the Ad Hoc Committee eliminates that possibility.
rt
U
�I
N
Q
a
x j S
° O 4
�U
8
a
F
w
0
x
a
F
I
I
i
__- ___.___________________ __.ppJ
'
F
i
gaa aaa
�=
wj
!p
C
a,J ;a
�n
E3 Ifx
3•.5i
C
$ �� � 5
Bey .r
�� �
¢
rrC,
—. �. N - __
;Il il�, Er
alll — 'r
-C
tz
r
.•I I H 1 s
.I
I. tg I
I
II, �
I
—
.,i
I r
I,
I.
.It
1Ir
=1
rya €F'.I
r
I
o Ny a 4
Q �
i'
� I '
�31 §5 aaS 2 "- _ _
'� p_'jx�•_gg ...m.
Y I
� c
II I
Ii I
4i
li !�
I
1 RYd:
1
x} �
�� t� •I I
{i
3§ I
M..
pis
'ss I I
r I I
I I
gaa aaa
3 a
!p
.a,• s
a,J ;a
L� =3
E3 Ifx
3•.5i
C
$ �� � 5
Bey .r
�� �
¢
d° SF
—. �. N - __
5.
-
•� ;
z
aaaaaa „aaa
a a� aaaaa
a a
]
C � p�e
0�9
�
_
o
Ha 3tH
i
� €estiasH §4a8
C €9 ' _�
o
��
I
€
�2,:,
nL
g
N
'e
ge3 g
tT
II I
Ii I
4i
li !�
I
1 RYd:
1
x} �
�� t� •I I
{i
3§ I
M..
pis
'ss I I
r I I
I I
i
zo
a
Q
O
a
U
z�Q
l�
9-
�lT,
�zl
I plJ
3 a
!p
.a,• s
a,J ;a
L� =3
E3 Ifx
yr"2q
5.
°�ItFI
0�9
tT
-•
�F�YeE
�
�
338
yy
Y_
t
3
?
ea
an
;t
C
-
da,
53
E a
5
s
•'c
B -
3
a
o t
dF
I
i
l''
III
7
1
e
I
I
ipa`3'�=
11}`i'•P_ji
P'I'
°•
-1i�li
's8��
t�yp
".?il
;:��.
=.
"IA
.e
^.
A�q
^•1=
a
°�]I!.dF
.
-
A
iF
y.a
�
�
3 °
;•�3a
�I
YX4
R
YI:.:
YFa
i
zo
a
Q
O
a
U
z�Q
l�
9-
�lT,
�zl
I plJ
i
I
i -
i f-
i
i
i
i�
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i j f
I
i
i;
i�
j
Al
ill
i
I
I
I
I
inn
I;
4!
i
W 'I
III
I
I
i
a
a
w a
4+
U
O
(a-
2
41
(
;; of
f~
s
a
I x
�o
��
� ...; -:
� &4
I � B
M
�-
Y}
�I
Q
S
��
�O
�V f
a 999
W
H
�Y-
U �
� � �
1- o
� � �0
� ���
2 "x P
o
X1.1 �
P'
Mel Mann
1219 West Bay Ave.
Newport Beach CA 92661
To: Newport Beach City Council
S. Bromberg: Honorable Mayor
G. Adams
J. Heffernan
R. Nichols
G. Proctor
T. Ridgeway
D. Webb
COUINCil AG N A
NO av a a 13
'03 l.cp D.i ?2:35
February 20, 2003
VISION TELEPHONE SURVEY RE MARINAPARK HOTEL
During the last half of 2002, the City vigorously encouraged residents to participate in the Vision
process so that future planning would reflect the needs and wishes of those of us who live here.
Four mailers costing $72,000 were sent throughout the City announcing the goals and seeking
citizen participation. We were all going to have a say in shaping our City.
Additionally, the City hired experienced consultants (Godbe Research and MIG) at a cost of
about $300,000 , designed to guide the staff and help conduct workshops and telephone surveys.
A telephone survey was carefully designed by the consultants and staff to be statistically
accurate and participants were carefully selected to not only represent all areas of the City but
also to select a cross section of demographics (voters -non voters etc).
Some 1000 phone calls were made to residents, averaging 12 minutes each, during which the
consultants asked and received feedback on a wide variety of City issues. One of the issues
related to new hotels and the following is quoted: (reported on page 43 of the 82 page consultant
report)
1) 73% in favor of a new hotel in the airport area
2) 66% against a new hotel in Marinapark
Residents are not against hotels provided they are in an acceptable location
We understand that the staff is now recommending that a City wide vote on Sutherland -Talla
Marinapark hotel be conducted in November of 2004. as if the same question asked in the
Vision process never happened - -a waste of $372,000. Unlike the neutral Vision telephone
survey, residents will be bombarded by propaganda from Sutherland- Talla.
It is requested that the City Council listen to your constituents, not call for an election in 2004
and stop the Sutherland -Talla project. If not, stop all work and disregard the results of the Vision
process.
Feb -21 -03 01:37P Real Estate Enterprises 949 6313620 P.02
6Z4 L4CSIMILE — 9491644 -3250
February 21, 2003
Sharon Z. Wood
Assistant City Manager
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach. CA 92663
RE: Letter of Support — Marinapark Project
Dear Sharon:
I am in complete support of the proposed Sutherland /Talla Regis Hotel project planned for the
Balboa Peninsula location. I understand the City may be considering this as an action item intended for
ballot initiative for the November 2004 City of Newport Beach election.
As a long time resident and business owner in Newport Beach, I feel the most reasonable and
fairest way to have the residents (voters) express their opinion is at the ballot box
This letter represents my complete support in favor of such an action.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISES
Ted E. Bean
Principal
901 Doer Dri%e, Ste. 216 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • 949 / 631 -0900 • Fax 949 / 63'. -3620
realestate- enterprises.corn
Mary A11yn and Ear) Dexter
1 15 2 West gay Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92661
(949- 675 -2272
February 17, 2003
Steve Bromberg, Mayor
Newport Beach City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mayor Bromberg,
We are totally against building a hotel on the Marina Park Mobile Home site. We
think Tom Billings, in his Letter to the Editor, January 25, 2003, expressed our
concerns completely. We have attached a copy of that letter. The Bay Club has
very effectively kept out the public by charging outrageous fees for the use of the
building that was to remain open for public, city and charitable organizations. They
want $2400.00 for a meeting room for one day plus extra charges for lunch. What
charitable organization can spend their funds in this way? Before the remodel our
non profit charity held its meetings there for the cost of 25 lunches which the
members paid. They may be open to the public and also accessible to non - profits
but only if they can pay their fees, which effectively keep the public out. I can't
imagine the effort it would take to try to use the beach.
So we hope that you will not deceive yourself into thinking that a hotel at that site
would be available for the public, charitable or civic organizations, without them
charging exorbitant fees that would effectively keep the Hotel private. Please do
not be deluded again.
THE PENINSULA NEEDS PUBLIC PARKLAND. IT NEEDS OPEN SPACE. IT
NEEDS ANOTHER AREA SUCH AS THE PARK AND OPEN SPACE AT THE
BALBOA PIER. PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE A HOTEL FOR THAT SITE. ONE
IS ENOUGH.
Sincerely,
Mary Allyn Dexter Earl Dexter
Lo
O
a
�� zv
°o ,VI^^J 2c'?��v3 =3ti� mo =gin
q2 V� aim >v��c��c p� Ea
co
0.
E EE co oy
M E �'
v " Z 0 o --'
�p a�3j L ° Eu
ZZ
I }�oFa =Ta. V0° E' -°
iR
j °
i. • �0°mL EO voL Z o6
55
€ LJL
2$�3'a E92 86 O `o
NW
4M �'
p
Lea-60
a9wmt °�3
N
�,0�°'0
W
Uo �btonv� –v-
ti -- . c 3.5 a o v� e E
ME$ _P 1 g w o '' v v
n v J
c
°
FC N '°Cy i C� C C9 O
OS ` �.�W "'USN ]o —o Q7
uj °°
%m J Ed ��.°°. va v�y� °�o•00 Kz
o v°a�°h
M.2
n itl
a�E rS cL$'a�a�o
a v eov. -N c �a
Sv F'S4 c Ev =ff E v
ell
y A ov$'o
5 214;
D.z �3 �E�_owr v�vE G��G2_n
C V = C C U
m @� `P-4
yac °�a 73 m'EC`c °u
po –j c�c rs_a,c ` �n - Z
3a Eoy ��vo r��y =bG
Svj vo.E
-6 4:
w aS �. as aaoEar `ov= ._
07/08/1999 01:19 9495486680 FRANK EISENDRATH PAGE 01
"RECEIVED AFTER AGE DA
FRIYdTED: "�J �-`� D 3
a %25103
Nj�FWMPT BFAe -H C17-V COUhCI L
i
siinL3LD KEel' F-UE12y T'NcH DP d-AND if Own13�
t:aR TNf 13PNFFtr 04> rkf RE�31 DE,YaF, lgc, for-
('R i U�+T � eNTF27�R1 >F
� FRkNrr �1s�,vnR�+ -rN
Gail P. Rosenstein
January 23, 2003
Mr. Steven Bromberg, Mayor
Mr. Tod Ridgeway, Council Member
Mr. Don Webb, Council Member
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: Marina Park Property
Gentlemen;
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
FR:NTE3:" �2_�T
933 Via Lido Soud
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Telephone (949) 723 -5768
Fax (949) 723 -6465
E -Mail iramark @aol.com
r.�
41
In regards to the Marina Park property and proposed Hotel, it is not about "should we
have it, but we must have it!" As I bike around our wonderful City, I continually see more
and more closed restaurants, vacant storefronts and unkempt properties. Many of these
abound our most valuable resource, Newport Harbor and Bay. We now have the
opportunity to develop a major resource of revenue for the City, while improving an older
underutilized site at Marina Park. This coincides with the Citys plan to revitalize the
Balboa Peninsula.
We had an opportunity to do similar projects with the proposed hotel and convention
Center at the Dunes, and also the proposed hotel development at the comer of Pacific
Coast Highway and Dover. We also lost an opportunity to redevelop Lido Village.
Our neighboring cities of Huntington Beach and Laguna Beach have seen the merits in
this type of project that have benefited their City and their revitalization projects.
When are we going to wake up and realize that without new carefully planned
development projects, our City is going to stagnate and continue to decline with more
vacant businesses and buildings.
The City has an opportunity to have this property improved upon for the benefit of all it's
constituents, and should lend its full support to this project.
Sincerely yours,