|
November
18, 2003
Mayor
Ila Mettee-McCutchon
[Sent By Email and FAX: 831-384-9148]
City of Marina, Marina City Hall
211 Hillcrest Avenue
Marina, CA 93933
RE:
Proposed Marina Heights Development
Dear
Mayor Mettee-McCutchon and Council Members:
On
Tuesday, November 18, 2003, the City Council will consider the proposed
Marina Heights Development Project. To approve the project, the
City Council must agree to make numerous changes to the City’s
General Plan. It must “sign off” on the Final Environmental
Impact Report prepared for the project, and it must, of course,
approve the Specific Plan for the proposed development.
LandWatch
Monterey County does not believe that the proposed project represents
the best use of the public land upon which the project is proposed.
LandWatch also does not believe that the Final EIR fully complies
with the California Environmental Quality Act. Finally, we note
that the proposed development would require numerous and highly
significant changes to the City’s recently-adopted General
Plan. As a matter of good land use planning, the City should require
developers to follow the City’s Plan, instead of changing the
City’s Plan to benefit the developers.
LandWatch
urges the City Council to require an adequate Environmental Impact
Report, and to require a project redesign that will be consistent
with the Marina General Plan, and that will maximize benefits to
the citizens and residents of Marina.
This
Project Is Proposed on Public Land – And That Changes Everything
The
Marina Heights project is not a typical development project. In
this case, the public owns the land. This changes (or should
change) everything.
In
the case of a typical development, local government acts as a “regulator”
of land use. Its basic job is to make sure that proposed developments
are consistent with the public interest. In carrying out that responsibility,
local officials typically defer to what the developer-landowner
suggests. It does make some sense to let a developer-landowner use
his land in the way he wants, as long as basic public policy requirements
are met.
In
this case, the City of Marina is not simply a “regulator.”
Thanks to an amazingly generous gift from the federal government,
the City Council will become the actual “owner” of the
land. This means that the Council shouldn’t be reviewing this
proposal as though it were a typical development project. Instead,
the Council should be deciding how this valuable public land can
best be used to achieve benefits for the citizens and residents
of Marina. The fact that the public will shortly own the land on
which this development is proposed makes this development different.
At least it should.
The
City, however, is not acting as if it were the landowner. If it
were, the plans would reflect the provisions of the Marina General
Plan, which is the official statement by the City of what sort of
land uses it wants. Furthermore, the process would have reflected
an effort to hear from the citizens and residents of Marina prior
to preparation of the specific plan. This plan for the development
of public land should have been designed by local residents. In
fact, the proposed specific plan was prepared by and for the Los
Angeles-based developer (and not by and for the citizens and residents
of Marina). Its provisions reflect that. Its greenbelt provisions
have not been used, creatively, as local citizens and residents
have asked, with the result that an existing neighborhood has been
unnecessarily impacted by a proposed new road. Trees are unmercifully
sacrificed, despite citizen and resident concern, and a potential
high school site is made impractical, despite the urgings of local
school officials. Many important provisions of the Marina General
Plan have been bypassed. Not least important, 80% of the new homes
proposed will be targeted to buyers who can afford a house costing
$500,000 or more. This is not typical of Marina’s citizens
and residents, so the main benefits of this public land development
will go to the Los Angeles-based developer and to out of City homebuyers.
If
Marina wanted to be creative, and truly maximize the public benefit
of the public land upon which Marina Heights is proposed, it could:
- Retain
the land, and allow development on long term land leases, which
would help produce long term affordability. This is what Stanford
University and CSUMB have done on their lands, and it definitely
works.
- Hold
all or part of their lands and allow housing development to proceed
in conjunction with new business developments within Marina. The
City, for example, could tell businesses they desire to attract
to the MBEST and the City’s industrial center that if they
located there the City of Marina would make lands within the proposed
Marina Heights development available for residential developments
that would directly meet the housing needs of the new business.
This is a way to attract new business, and to make a “jobs-housing
balance” a reality.
- Rehabilitate
the existing homes (now slated for demolition), and rent them
out, producing a very significant income stream for the city.
This strategy could be paired with the strategy of holding land
for developments that stimulate new business development.
There
are other strategies possible, as well. The key to all of them is
recognizing that the Fort Ord lands are different because the public
owns these lands. To turn these lands into a typical “development
project” is to miss an historic opportunity.
It
is not too late to do something different.
The Option Agreement that LandWatch commented upon about a year
ago was drafted to turn public land into a “typical development
project.” We urged the City not to sign that Agreement—but
it did. Nonetheless, the Option Agreement does provide that there
is no limit on the discretion of the City in the entitlement and
approval process [Sec. 3.2.3]. That means that the City can
require the Marina Heights project to be redesigned and restructured—which
is what we recommend.
The
City Council Should Follow The Existing General Plan
The
Marina General Plan was adopted in 2001, making it “recent.”
It is not old. It is not outmoded. It was specifically designed
to guide city development on Fort Ord. The City Council should follow
the Marina General Plan, not change its basic provisions to benefit
the developer. Here are just a few of the key changes that the City
Council is being asked to make:
- The
General Plan requires higher densities than are proposed by the
developer. As the EIR points out, following the General Plan would
allow the City to maintain more open space, and to provide more
school and recreational areas. It would also allow the City to
provide for a future urban reserve. All of these advantages will
be lost if the City Council agrees to modify the existing General
Plan density requirements. The developer is touting this development
as “new urbanism.” It is practically the opposite!
Reducing General Plan densities to allow for a more sprawling
design is bad planning, and the opposite of the principles of
“New Urbanism” and “Traditional Neighborhood Design.”
The Council should stick with its existing General Plan.
- The
General Plan requires that new developments facilitate “public
transit and [a] pedestrian oriented community.” The developer
wants to be excused from this General Plan requirement. The Council
should stick with its existing General Plan.
- The
General Plan requires the provision of affordable housing within
each new development—but this developer wants to be excused
from that requirement. It is unconscionable that the City of Marina
would allow the construction of 1,050 new homes—and not
require that even one of those homes be affordable by a person
with an average or below average income. There is absolutely
NO genuinely “affordable housing” in this development.
The only housing required is housing directed to persons with
above average incomes, and of course 80% of the homes will
be for the extremely wealthy. The City Council should stick
with its existing General Plan.
- The
General Plan sets a standard for park and recreation space—and
this developer wants to be excused from that requirement. The
City Council should stick with its existing General Plan.
- The
General Plan specifies that community development “shall
be allocated and phased in a manner than enhances local employment
and economic opportunities,” and it further requires
a “jobs-housing balance.” These are key provisions of
the General Plan, and the developer wants to be excused from complying.
There is no reason why the City can’t tie new home sales
to new business and economic development, as called for in the
General Plan. By discarding this provision, the City will turn
Marina Heights into a typical, large-lot residential subdivision,
catering to upper income home buyers who will have no specific
connection to Marina, and whose home purchase will provide no
new impetus to job development in the city. The City Council should
stick with its existing General Plan.
- The
General Plan and the principles of “New Urbanism” require
that large new residential developments incorporate some associated
commercial development. This developer wants to be excused from
this requirement. The City Council should stick with its existing
General Plan.
The
Final EIR is Not Adequate
The
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the Council
insist upon the preparation of a Final EIR that fully satisfies
the requirements of state law. In this case, the Final EIR does
not adequate respond to many of the comments filed in response to
the Draft EIR. Traffic impacts, specifically, have not been properly
analyzed. School impacts have been discounted, as have impacts on
the natural vegetation and other conditions of the site.
Other
Concerns – And Conclusion
LandWatch
believes that the Council should require that the project be redesigned
to maximize public benefits, and to reflect the provisions of the
existing Marina General Plan. In addition, we hope the Council will
pay attention to the following concerns:
- The
specific plan should be modified to honor the request from Pueblo
Del Mar and the Housing Authority to locate townhouses adjacent
to the existing Pueblo Del Mar facility.
- The
specific plan should be modified to restore an adequate and functional
high school site.
- The
Council should require a legal analysis of the propriety of proceeding
with a project that will result, essentially, at the “sale”
of a public asset at what appears to be a “below market”
price. This is particularly important in light of the lawsuit
filed against the City of Seaside, with respect to the Seaside
Highlands development, since the Judge found, in that case, that
there was a significant probability that the City Council had
not properly represented the citizens, in making what amounted
to a “below market” sale.
Thank
you for considering our comments on this very important matter.
Very
truly yours,Gary A. Patton, Executive Director
LandWatch Monterey County
cc:
Cypress Marina Heights, L.P.
Interested Persons
posted
11/19/03
|
