‘Nothing is not an option’

Stephen Sutherland’s Newport Beach office is sprinkled with resort

renderings and materials that promote the projects he’s designed.

The images yield a common theme: Beaches. Sutherland, 55, has

devoted a career to designing pristine villas in places like the

southern tip of Baja California. But now, in his own back yard, he

has walked into a battle.

Sutherland wants to build a 110-room resort hotel on the

Marinapark site, where mobile homes, an American Legion post, a

public beach, a Girl Scout house and Las Arenas Park now co-exist in

an area off of West Balboa Boulevard on the Balboa Peninsula.

Easier said than done.

He has met opposition even though he was picked by the city to

design the project. Opponents, such as Protect Our Parks leader Tom

Billings, argue that Sutherland’s plan will create congestion while

commercializing prime public land for which there are better

development alternatives.

But Sutherland has tenaciously been busy holding to a familiar

refrain. “Nothing is not an option” for the site, he says, as he

gears up for Nov. 2. It’s then when the public will have a chance to

vote on Measure L, which, if passed, would allow a resort -- not

necessarily his -- to be built on the site. The Pilot’s Ryan Carter

asked Sutherland some questions about the project.

Why, in your opinion, is the Marinapark resort the right project

for this site in Newport Beach? Why is it good for Newport Beach?

It’s not just my opinion. The resort is the right project for this

site because the City Council -- the representatives of the citizens

of Newport Beach -- deemed it to be the project of choice out of nine

proposals submitted to the city. Beyond that, it’s the right project

because it will begin the revitalization of the Balboa Peninsula,

will completely rehabilitate the American Legion Post and Girl Scout

House while providing a new community center, will generate $100

million to the city over 50 years, and will contribute as much as $50

million to the Newport Beach Tidelands Fund over the same period of

time.

Describe the project, in a nutshell?

The resort is only 110 rooms in 16 villas. Some of them are two

stories, but none of them are higher than two stories. All of the

units on the bay front will be one story. Only 12 of the villas will

be sold as fractional ownerships. So, it is not a time-share hotel.

The structure itself will only occupy a little over two acres of the

8-acre site. The rest of the property will be public walkways,

gardens and community facilities. The public beach will remain

public, and will provide new pedestrian corridors to the beach. In

fact, the beach has never been considered public and is seldom used

because of the private property signs the trailer park installed.

From a traffic standpoint, according to the city’s certified

environmental impact report, the resort won’t generate any more

traffic at 100% occupancy than the current mobile home park, which is

roughly 40% occupied. And, the resort plan provides twice as much

on-site parking that the city requires. The public will not only be

welcomed, but invited to enjoy the resort’s restaurants, pedestrian

walkways and the beach.

How is it different than, say, the Balboa Bay Club, or other

hotels?

The Balboa Bay Club provides no public access -- zero -- to its

bay front beach, which is very small. It’s for members only. The

resort will have 929 feet of bay-front beach, and every inch of it is

accessible to the public. The Balboa Bay Club is also very tall --

five stories. The Marinapark resort is mostly single-story, with just

a couple of two-story structures. That is, the resort, will not

obscure the current skyline at all. In all, the resort is about

one-sixth the size of the Balboa Bay Club.

Critics are concerned that your project takes prime public park

and tideland area and commercializes it. Why is it so important --

particularly in the city of Newport Beach -- to do something with the

land that makes money?

Is it prime public park land? Parks are wonderful, but only if

they’re in the right location. The proponents of a public park at the

site want to add a boat launch ramp, a picnic area and a soccer

field, to name a few things. In general terms alone, the city’s

environmental report finds that use will generate two to three times

more traffic than is already there. Where will all the soccer

families park? Where will boaters park their trailers? What kind of

noise and pollution will that use generate? Residents should also

think about what it will cost to build that park, maintain it and

police it.

A lot of people discount the revenue-generating component of the

resort, claiming Newport Beach is a rich city. That’s short-sighted

and ransoms away the city’s future ability to provide high-quality

services to it residents 20 or 30 years from now. One-hundred million

dollars is $100 million and these are funds the state can’t take

away.

I’d ask today’s young Newport Beach residents, who will be Newport

Beach’s homeowners, if they’d like to see that revenue invested in

the city’s future for their benefit?

Resort opponent Tom Billings has proposed a park alternative,

complete with an aquatic center, soccer fields, several hundred feet

of beach and other recreation areas. What’s wrong with that?

Nothing, in theory. But as I said earlier, are those appropriate

uses for the location? Are peninsula residents really aware of the

intensity of traffic and noise a soccer field generates? What kind of

parking demand will be generated by boat-trailer traffic and

recreational parking demands from visitors from Orange County and the

Inland Empire? Mr. Billings’ plan is a high-intensity use, much more

so than the resort. What’s so ironic is that people who are

supportive of the Billings plan are the very people who supported

Greenlight, which is fundamentally a traffic-management ordinance.

Newport Beach provides more than its fair share of open space and

recreation facilities for the rest of the region. The Marinapark

resort is an asset for Newport Beach residents.

How has the design of your project changed since you were chosen

to design the project? Why has it changed?

I’ve been working with the city, the American Legion post, the

Girl Scout Council and hundreds and hundreds of volunteers over the

past three years on the resort plan. I’ve always listened to what

they have to say. Their input has been invaluable. The project was

originally designed to be 156 villas. We reduced that to 110 based on

my discussions with the community. I’m open for suggestions to

improve the project.

Critics say your project will block bay views, increase traffic in

the area, does not account for better alternatives for the site and

has not been thoroughly vetted by the city. Could you respond to

those concerns?

That’s just campaign propaganda. This project is the result of a

land-use decision made by the City Council in 1997 to discontinue the

use of the land as a mobile home park. The city issued a request for

proposals for ideas for a better use, and, fortunately, they selected

mine. The project has been downsized from its original scope based on

community input, has been vetted at more than two-dozen public

hearings and meetings, and has been subjected to one of the largest

and most expensive environmental studies in the city’s history.

The resort won’t block bay views, but will actually enhance them.

There are several view corridors that will be created so that the bay

is visible from Balboa Boulevard. There will be pedestrian access to

the bay-front beach through the resort and 18th Street. The EIR

clearly finds that the resort will generate no more traffic at 100%

occupancy than the current mobile home park, which is 40% occupied.

As far as alternatives, doing nothing is not an option. The city

has already decided and the state is insisting on it, that the site

will cease as a mobile home park. The resort plan is a studied, known

quantity, and people like it. The decision for voters is what will

take the place of the trailer park. A soccer field, a boat ramp, boat

storage, picnic facilities and a concert stage are simply the wrong

uses for that location in terms of traffic, noise and pollution.

What if the project fails to bring in the estimated annual revenue

to the city?

One of the first requirements after the measure passes is that we

provide the necessary funds to assure the city’s revenue. The city’s

own study of the financial feasibility of the project was done by

PFK, [a firm] which is the foremost authority on resort finances.

They assured the city that the $2.2 million annual revenue is a

reasonable expectation.

You have designed hotels, but from what I understand, this is your

first design and development. Have you secured the proper financing

to build the resort?

This is indeed my first project. But as project’s go, a

$35-million development is not huge. Having said that, very few

developers -- even the very large ones -- use their own money to

finance a project. They may use some of their own resources, but

often they partner with a bank or other financial institution. At

this stage, I can tell you that I have finance sources lined up

waiting to be a part of this wonderful resort. I can’t share the

names with you, but they will certainly become known once Measure L

passes and we begin working with the city to implement the

development plan.

How much will the project cost?

Thirty-five million, not a dime of it from taxpayers.

If Measure L loses, what’s next? For that matter, if it passes,

what next?

If it fails, I will naturally be disappointed. But I will accept

and respect that that is the will of the voters. If it passes, I will

immediately be working with the city to satisfy all of its

requirements with respect to financing and development of the

project.