Balboa Bay Club Files Claim Against City : Redevelopment: Club officials say Newport Beach rejected their $60-million plan unfairly.

The Balboa Bay Club has filed a claim for unspecified damages against the city of Newport Beach, alleging that the city failed to give the club a fair hearing before rejecting a $60-million redevelopment plan.

The claim stems from a July 22 public hearing at which the City Council not only voted down the project but denied a request to postpone its vote on the controversial project.

Club officials had sought a delay to change their redevelopment plan in response to concerns raised by the community. Several homeowner’s groups which opposed the plan also suggested that the vote could be postponed.

In the claim filed with the city late Friday, the Balboa Bay Club contends that its 1986 lease with the city required Newport Beach to “cooperate and work together” with the club on the development plan. Failing to allow a continuance of the hearing was a breach of that obligation, the club’s lawyer contends.

“The requirement that the city cooperate would include, at a minimum, granting a continuance of the type that is routinely granted,” attorney Ronald J. DeFelice said. “There was a need to respond to the community, and all we were asking for was time to do that.”

Newport Beach City Atty. Robert Burnham said the claim will be presented to the council at its regular meeting next Monday with a recommendation that it be denied. He declined to comment on the specific charges.

Council member Ruthelyn Plummer, who led the vote against the project and was joined by Evelyn R. Hart, Jean H. Watt and Mayor Phil Sansone, said she had not seen the claim and declined to comment.

DeFelice said the club took action to preserve the club’s legal options. State law requires that a claim must be filed with the city before a lawsuit can commence. Under the statute of limitations, the last day the club could file a lawsuit challenging the city’s action is Nov.19.

“The club hopes to reach an agreement with the city to waive the statue of limitations so the parties have more time to work out their differences outside of court,” DeFelice said.

The club has had preliminary talks with city officials about reopening negotiations on the expansion plan, DeFelice said, but neither he nor Burnham would provide specifics.

DeFelice said the club is not prepared to radically alter the plan, which includes the addition of a 300-room hotel, a ballroom that could accommodate 450, two cocktail lounges and a new athletic facility.

The 42-year-old landmark, which sits on prime bayfront land owned by the city, currently includes a swimming pool, a clubhouse and a 144-unit apartment complex.

Concerned about potential traffic congestion and obscured waterfront views, opponents of the expansion plan have argued that a private club is an improper use of tidelands, which are supposed to be preserved for the general public.

Supporters of the development say that the storied club--long a haunt of the rich and famous--has come to exemplify the community’s lifestyle and that an upgrade would benefit the city.

Proponents also argue that the expansion will attract more tourists. DeFelice, citing a city staff report, said the expansion could increase annual revenues to the city by $2.2 million in rent payments and taxes.

Club officials have already tried to address some opposition by adding buffer zones, sound abatement measures, landscaping, a subterranean road, and 35-foot height limits on new buildings.

Supporters and opponents of the expansion plan seem to agree that some renovation of the aging facility is in order.

“Something has to happen eventually, whether it is next year or in the next 10 years,” said Councilman John C. Cox Jr., who has supported the expansion. “The property can’t just sit there and deteriorate, that makes no economic sense for the city or the club.”