Builder files Marinapark claim

Voters spurned hotel project last year, but Stephen Sutherland wants a chance to put it back on ballot.Hotel designer Stephen Sutherland has filed a claim against the city of Newport Beach demanding more time to try to build a resort on the Marinapark property.

City voters in Nov. 2004 soundly rejected changing the city’s general plan to allow the resort. Sutherland, however, wants to put the controversial project on the ballot again.

If the city rejects the claim, which was filed Oct. 3, Sutherland can file a lawsuit. His claim asks for $1 million to reimburse him for money he spent on the defeated 2004 ballot issue and an environmental report on the project.

But what Sutherland mainly wants is 18 more months to try to develop a 110-room resort project on Marinapark, an 8.1-acre piece of city-owned property. He believes there’s still time left on either of two agreements with the city giving his company, Sutherland Talla Hospitality, the exclusive right to negotiate to develop the property.

The city has 45 days from when the claim was filed to respond, Newport Beach City Attorney Robin Clauson said.

The first agreement was approved by the City Council in 2000 after Sutherland Talla Hospitality was the only one of nine prospective bidders to submit a complete proposal. The agreement was amended in 2003 to reflect that Sutherland would put the necessary zoning change to a public vote.

The 2000 agreement gave Sutherland three years to work on a project at Marinapark, and the city later granted him an additional nine months, according to his claim.

The 2003 agreement may not be valid, Sutherland claims, because it was never signed by the city clerk or stamped with the city seal.

“One way or the other, I have 18 months remaining on one agreement or the other,” Sutherland said.

Clauson said she is still researching the claim and can’t definitively say whether Sutherland still has time left on his agreements. But based on preliminary information, she said, “the answer is no, I don’t believe he does.”

The city charter requires the clerk and mayor to sign agreements. Clauson said that for unknown reasons the clerk did not sign the 2003 amended agreement. An independent legal evaluation of the issue did not determine whether that made it invalid, she said.

Former City Attorney Bob Burnham, who was representing the city when the agreements were created, declined to comment on Sutherland’s claim, as did Mayor John Heffernan.

The project, estimated to cost $35 million, included a 110-room resort including 12 fractional units, which are similar to time-shares. Sutherland now wants to bring the same project back to voters.

The 2004 campaign was a bitter one. Opponents of the resort characterized the issue as a choice between giving away public land to a developer for an exclusive resort and reserving the land for a public park, though the ballot measure didn’t guarantee a park on the property.

Sutherland maintained that the public would be able to eat in the resort’s restaurant, use its boat dock and continue to enjoy the public beach there, and he pledged a total of $3 million to rebuild the Girl Scout house at the site and to refurbish the adjacent American Legion post.

Voters overwhelmingly rejected changing the city’s general plan to allow the resort, with 66.6% of the ballots cast against the change. The City Council formed an ad hoc committee to look at proposals for Marinapark in January but has not yet decided what to do with the property.

Sutherland said he believes he could win a second vote on the same resort proposal if voters know the truth about his project and what’s really on the property now.

A mobile home park has occupied part of the land for about 50 years, and it’s also the site of a Girl Scout house, a small park and public beach areas.

Nothing in either of the agreements says that his contract with the city ends if Sutherland loses a public vote, he said, and the council already has approved an environment report on the resort.

“I think the best way to do this for the community is to have a vote and to have the residents decide based on facts, not on fallacy,” Sutherland said.

QUESTION

If the Marinapark project were placed on the ballot again, what would be the outcome? Call our Readers Hotline at (714) 966-4664 or send e-mail to dailypilot@latimes.com. Please spell your name and tell us your hometown and phone numbers for verification purposes only.(LA)Stephen Sutherland20051017iohl8bkn(LA)