Measure L won’t end issues on peninsula

Alicia Robinson

Voters will decide Tuesday on Measure L, but if it passes, city

officials will be faced with a host of other decisions about what to

put on the Marinapark property.

Measure L would amend the city’s general plan to allow development

of a commercial project on the city-owned property, which has been a

mobile-home park for about 50 years. The main proponent of Measure L

has been Stephen Sutherland, whose proposal to develop a hotel has

been a major source of controversy.

If Measure L passes, Sutherland still would need the City Council

to approve his specific development plans. His $35-million proposal

entails a 110-room resort including 12 fractional units, which are

like timeshare suites, but the users would own their portion of the

suite for three months of the year.

The rooms would be in 16 one- and two-story, villa-style

buildings, and a main building would include two restaurants, a

lounge and a 3,600-square-foot ballroom that can be used by the

public. A spa also would be part of the development, and the resort

would offer food service and guest dock space to residents as well as

hotel guests. Sutherland has promised a cornucopia of other amenities

to sweeten the project, such as a $2.5-million investment to rebuild

the adjacent Girl Scout house into a combined community center and

Girl Scout facility and $500,000 to renovate the nearby American

Legion Post. He would also expand public parking on 18th Street.

“The first thing that residents need to know is that this isn’t a

giveaway of the land. It’s a lease,” Sutherland said. “Marinapark is

not a park [now]. It’s a trailer park. With the existing use, it’s

very difficult to access this beautiful beach.... We [would]

encourage public use. We’re not a private club.”

A consultant determined the hotel’s suites will fetch an average

of $425 a night, but Sutherland thinks that estimate is low. He

estimates by the fourth year after opening, the resort could generate

as much as $3 million in revenue for the city.

Regent International would operate the resort, but Sutherland is

waiting until after the election to announce a financial partner in

the development. Former partner D. Michael Talla was asked to

withdraw because of his investments in Las Vegas strip clubs, and

subsequent partner Michael Rosenfeld left after project opponents

harassed his financial contacts, Sutherland said.

Those on a waiting list of people interested in the deal are all

Newport Beach residents, he said.

“The whole area needs to come back, and what better to bring back

a neighborhood that’s in decline than a $35-million, high-quality

project, a project that’s going to be a new type of tourism to the

peninsula,” Sutherland said.

THE ALTERNATIVES

Opponents of the project say they’d rather see the land devoted to

public recreational use, which is what the general plan calls for,

but not many alternate plans have evolved beyond the embryonic stage.

“Our plan is to defeat Measure L, and we’ve been encouraged by the

tremendous support we’ve received from the residents,” Protect Our

Parks spokesman Tom Billings said. “There’s been a whole range of

ideas brought up for the park design, which range from a passive park

to an aquatic center.”

Protect Our Parks was formed in July specifically to fight Measure

L and the resort proposal, but other uses for the land were suggested

earlier than that.

City resident Steve Barnard had an architect create a plan for a

water park with a boat house to store about 400 people-powered boats

-- no large motorboats on trailers -- and a marina with about 30 boat

slips for visitors. A spot for the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum was

included, since the riverboat that houses it now is on property

leased from the Irvine Co. The development also would include a

restaurant and bar, a senior citizens meeting center, a rebuilt Girl

Scout house and public amenities like tennis and basketball courts.

Barnard’s concept was to form a committee of interested parties

that would lease the land from the city and divide it into smaller

leases for operators of the various facilities. He doesn’t know how

much the project would cost or how much income it might generate for

the city, he said.

“Parks don’t make money, but they provide a service to the

community,” Barnard said. “Our contention is that if we defeat

[Measure L] we’ll have the right to figure out what we ought to build

there. If we don’t, we’ll have lost it forever.”

PARK IDEA, RESIDENTS SHUNNED, OPPONENTS SAY

Barnard and Billings agree that there are many possibilities of

public uses for the land and that the community should decide as a

whole. They’re not alone in feeling bypassed in the City Council’s

decision to seek proposals and award Sutherland the exclusive right

to negotiate to develop the land.

The city’s Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission made some

preliminary suggestions for a park when the city was looking for

development proposals, but some think those were ignored in favor of

more profitable plans.

In late 1999, the commission worked with a landscape architect and

submitted a plan to the council, but it never got a fair hearing,

said Patricia Beek, who chaired the parks commission in 1999 and

2000.

“Absolutely we weren’t,” she said. “We weren’t able to go ahead

and have any public outreach either.... We represented the city.

You’d think that we would at least be told as a backup to go ahead

and work on something.”

Another Marinapark pitch that went by the wayside is the one from

the people who live there now in the mobile-home park. The park’s 54

residents suggested to the city that they be given a long-term lease

and the city could increase their rents, which are now about $1,570 a

month per home.

With a renewed lease, some residents might even put upscale

manufactured homes on the property, Marinapark resident Stewart

Berkshire said.

The city could charge closer to $2,650 a month, and the income

wouldn’t be subject to the whims of tourists, he said.

“We live here, and we’d like to stay,” Berkshire said. “A

long-term lease would result in people upgrading these properties and

make the whole place look better and also increase the income to the

city to that approximating the hotel, except we’d be sure to pay.”

* ALICIA ROBINSON covers business, politics and the environment.

She may be reached at (714) 966-4626 or by e-mail at

alicia.robinson@latimes.com.