Category Archives: Watch List

Local Coastal Program Amendments

Local Coastal Program Amendments . . . as of May 2017

Latest News:  At the Corona del Mar Residents Association‘s May 18, 2017, meeting, the City’s Community Development Director, Kimberly Brandt, and Deputy Director, Brenda Wisneski, gave a presentation entitled “Local Coastal Plan Amendments (Shoreline Properties) & future General Plan Update Project” (see the agenda).   Regarding the LCP Amendments, Ms. Wisneski indicated that despite the Newport Beach Planning Commission’s action on May 4 (recommending Council approve the flawed amendment package exactly as presented by staff), instead of sending the proposal directly to the City Council, City staff is working with the Coastal Commission staff in Long Beach to figure out what might actually fly (before it becomes effective, whatever amendments the Council approves have to be certified by the Coastal Commission, which looks to their own staff to spot problems with them).  She anticipated this process might take several months, but did not explain exactly what would happen at the end of it.  That is, would a revised set of amendments be brought back to the Planning Commission for public re-consideration?  Or (as happened with the original LCP) would the Council adopt City staff’s (flawed) package, but with a forewarning (based on the staff discussions) of what parts the Coastal Commission would likely change or reject?  Apparently time will tell.

Project Overview:  The Newport Beach Local Coastal Program sets policies and detailed rules for issuing Coastal Development Permits, which are the main mechanism for ensuring compliance with the California Coastal Act.  Effective January 30, 2017, finally (some 45 years after passage of the voter-enacted precursor to the Coastal Act) and for the first time, the City of Newport Beach obtained a fully certified Local Coastal Program authorizing it to process and issue such permits.

Why We Were Watching:  The ink was barely dry on the LCP, when it was discovered that a raft of apparently staff-generated amendments was being rushed to approval with very little public awareness.  SPON is very concerned both with the process and with the substance of the proposed amendments.  In particular, City staff is seeking major changes to the Coastal Land Use Plan’s policy declaration regarding the City’s long-standing building height limitations, which would, among other things, exempt so-called “planned communities” from the considerations that apply to other properties.

As most recently presented to the Planning Commission (see May 4, below), and going to the City Council, the current amendment package consists of three (or eleven, depending on how one counts) completely unrelated items:

  • a Balboa Village Parking Management District plan (eliminating off-street parking requirements for most businesses in that area)
  • an East Oceanfront Encroachment Program (allowing private improvements on the first 15 feet of the public beach in front of most ocean-facing homes in Peninsula Point from E Street to the Wedge)
  • a “Implementation Plan Clean-up” package (itself consisting of nine unrelated insertions and changes to the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Implementation Plan)

Whatever one may think of the merits of staff’s proposals, the proposals themselves are deeply flawed:

  • As indicated in a SPON letter, the Parking Management plan prioritizes resident-serving commercial uses over marine-related ones, in contradiction of Coastal Act policies.
  • The Encroachment Program introduces new regulations into the Implementation Plan that permit development in areas where it is explicitly prohibited by the governing Land Use Plan.
  • The “Clean-up,” among other contradictions, deletes the Coastal Commission approved  Land Use Plan policy exceptions that allowed the Lido House Hotel (being built at the old City Hall site) to rise to 65 feet in a 35-foot height limitation zone, but retains the Implementation Plan regulations allowing such excess heights (now without explanation or justification).

On a separate track, City staff has proposed amending both the Zoning Code and the LCP to accommodate what they say are changes required by new state laws in the City’s rules for “Accessory Dwelling Units” (small rental units) in single-family neighborhoods.  That was first seen (and initially rejected) as Item 2 at the Planning Commission’s May 4,  2017, meeting.

Upcoming:

  • The date of the City Council hearing on these important amendments has not been announced.
  • If the Council approves staff’s flawed proposal, it will be submitted to Coastal Commission staff for a hearing before that body.  If it is like what happened with the original Implementation Plan, the package will be presented to the Coastal Commission with proposed changes developed by Coastal and City staff with little or no public awareness of what has been negotiated, or why.

Recent Events:

  • May 4, 2017:  The amendments were re-noticed for a hearing before the Planning Commission as Item 3 on May 4.  At that hearing, it seemed apparent most of the Commissioners either had not reviewed the item in advance of the meeting, or were not interested in it.  Despite the many flaws pointed out to them (see above under “Why We’re Watching”), on a 5:1 vote (with Commissioner Lawler absent and Commissioner Weigand voting “no”) the Commission, without any substantive comment or any revisions at all, recommended the Council approve all the amendments as submitted.  The Commission showed more interest in the separate Accessory Dwelling Unit amendments, which they voted to continue until they had more time to study them.
  • April 11, 2017:  With little to no prior public awareness, action by the Council on the LCP amendments was scheduled for a public hearing as Item 18 on the April 11 agenda.  As a result of reminders from the public that Council action was not legally allowed without a Planning Commission recommendation (as required by Table 21.50-1 in the newly certified Implementation Plan), the item was withdrawn.

News Coverage

  • none so far

Helpful Links

 

Mariner’s Mile

Latest news: The Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council about City staff’s proposed “Mariners’ Mile Revitalization Master Plan,” which had been expected to come on May 18, seems to be on hold until at least June or July, apparently to allow staff to resolve whether the Commission’s Chairman is barred from voting due to a business conflict. Meanwhile, the “Mariners Mile Hwy Configuration/Land Use Review” budget item (project ID No. 15T06), dating back to the FY2014-15 budget, remains, with $90,631 of residual funding, in the Capital Improvement Program component of the City’s FY2017-18 budget. That account appears to be the one used to fund the “revitalization” efforts. The proposed CIP also includes a “re-budget” of $49,944 toward the City’s long-delayed reconfiguration of the Old Newport/PCH intersection (see Recent Events, May 5, 2017, below). The budget is expected to be approved by the Council on June 13.

Overview: According to the City’s website, Mariners Mile (oddly spelled Mariners’ in the proposed new Master Plan despite existing road signs to the contrary) has been identified as an area needing revitalization. With completion of a study evaluating roadway capacity requirements for West Coast Highway, the City is evaluating existing land use policies and regulations, which it says may inhibit “revitalization” of the area. The “Mariners’ Mile Revitalization Master Plan” is ostensibly intended to identify potential refinements and barriers to revitalizing the area.

Why We’re Watching: The City contracted with PlaceWorks in May of 2016 to assist in these efforts. According to the City, the plan they develop will provide an implementation strategy to improve the area. But PlaceWorks is the same outside consulting firm (and in this case the same principal consultant) that coordinated the City meetings that led to 2014’s ill-conceived Measure Y.  PlaceWorks also prepared the environmental analysis for Uptown Newport and the recently rejected Museum House high-rise residential development project.

PlaceWorks’ odd decision to change the spelling of Mariners Mile from Mariner’s to Mariners’ seems indicative for their general disregard for the existing Mariner’s Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework adopted, after considerable effort, in 2000.

Concern about the outside planners’ disconnect with the history and spirit of the place is exacerbated by the fact that a good portion of Mariners Mile (the so-called “Haskell/Ardell properties” and the adjacent Duffy Boat sales/rental office) has recently changed hands and will likely be the subject of major projects and proposals. As residents, we expect these projects and proposals to adhere to our General Plan rules in order to avoid spot zoning exceptions which pave the way for excessive heights and density. And as residents, we need to raise these concerns during the earliest phases of project planning.

Opportunity to Join Voices with Other Concerned Citizens: A group of residents, business people and business property owners, concerned about recent City planning decisions affecting Mariners Mile and the future direction of the new “revitalization” effort, including the renewed push to widen Coast Highway, has banded together as the Coalition to Preserve Mariner’s Mile. The group is completely independent of SPON, but has chosen to associate with SPON for purposes of tax-deductible fundraising.

The Coalition hopes to increase citizen awareness of and  influence over the City’s current planning effort and future planning decisions affecting Mariners Mile.

On May 5, 2017, the Coalition launched a  website which articulates their efforts and concerns.  Visit it for further information, including an opportunity to sigh their petition of concern.

Upcoming:

June 5, 2017:  Last day to submit comments on Caltrans’ environmental study of their Arches Intersection improvement proposal.  See May 5, 2017, below.

Recent Events:

Planning Commission Recommendation on “Master Plan” (May 18, 2017): A formal hearing before the Planning Commission was expected on May 18, at the end of which City staff expected the Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council about the proposed Revitalization Master Plan.  However, that meeting was cancelled. The matter will apparently be brought back at a later date after City staff resolves whether Commission Chair Kory Kramer can participate in the recommendation (see notes about his conflict under April 20, below).  That process could apparently take anywhere from 30 to 60 days.

City “Development Review Committee” (May 11, 2017): City staff’s “Development Review Committee” is expected to hold a “Pre-Application & Project Review” meeting regarding a proposal for the former Ardell Property (site of A’maree’s and the boat storage area across PCH).  The meeting is not likely to be open to the public.

PMM Community Awareness Event (May 6, 2017):  On Saturday May 6, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., the Coalition to Preserve Mariner’s Mile held a  “Community Awareness Event” at Cliff Drive Park in the upper picnic area between Riverside and Redlands.

Caltrans releases Arches Intersection plans for public comment (May 5, 2017):  The City, in collaboration with Caltrans, wishes to make changes to the “Arches Intersection” where Old Newport, PCH and the Newport Blvd. bridge come together.  Before proceeding with the project, Caltrans, on May 5, released the required environmental “Initial Study and Negative Declaration” for 30 days of public review and comment. This project has been in the City’s Capital Improvement Program budget since 2012 (the “FY13 CIP“) and curiously the CIP adopted in 2016 and the proposed CIP set for adoption in 2017, in which it is listed as “Old Newport Blvd/West Coast Hwy Widening (15R19),” say the design and environmental review has been “completed.”  In fact, the City seems to have passed the review responsibility for this over to Caltrans.  However that may be, the City’s Public Works staff has said they have been unable to obtain grant funding for this project, so its fate is uncertain even if it obtains Caltrans approval.

Wake Up! Newport presentation (May 4, 2017):  Community Development Director Kimberly Brandt was expected to speak about the Revitalization Master Plan (among other topics) at the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce’s “Wake Up! Newport” meeting.  Like the April 11 presentation, the meeting  was video recorded and should be posted (under that date) on the City’s streaming video page

Planning Commission study session (April 20, 2017): The Planning Commission held a study session on the Master Plan on April 20 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, with a minimum quorum of four Commissioners in attendance (PC Chair Kory Kramer appears to be permanently recused from this item due to his management interest in the Balboa Bay Club & Resort, Commissioners Zak and Hillgren had excused absences).  The consultant made a presentations about the proposed Master Plan and City staff made one about the eventual widening of Coast Highway through Mariners Mile to six lanes. After extensive public input, the Commissioners seemed skeptical about the desirability of widening the highway and uncertain as to whether they would be able to make a positive recommendation on May 18. Staff persisted in asserting that the widening issue was separate from the Master Plan, and the latter needed to be pushed through to completion.

Good Morning CdM presentation (April 13, 2017):  Newport Beach Community Development Directory Kimberly Brandt and Public Works Director Dave Webb gave a reprise of their April 11 SUN presentation to a smaller Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce breakfast group.  Their presentation prompted questions, not very well answered, about the meaning and significance of a “Master Plan” and how it relates to other planning documents such as the City’s General Plan.

Speak Up Newport presentation (April 11, 2017):  City staff made a presentation about the Master Plan and PCH widening proposals at the monthly Speak Up Newport meeting at City Hall.  The presentation was video recorded and should be posted (under that date) on the City’s streaming video page

Release of draft Master Plan (April 11, 2017):  A 163 page draft of the “Mariners’ Mile Revitalization Master Plan” has been posted for public review on the City website, here.

District 2 Town Hall (March 27, 2017): Mariners Mile was announced as one of several topics to be presented at a “District 2 Town Hall” conducted by Councilman Brad Avery in the Mariners Branch Library community room, and intended to inform the public of City activities impacting residents of District 2. However, discussion was largely deferred when the level of public interest proved such that Councilman Avery declared it a topic needing a meeting of its own.

Mariners’ Mile Revitalization Master Plan Community Meeting (January 2017)
The third public “workshop” was held at Marina Park on January 26, 2017, at 6:00 pm. Although comments were entertained at the end, this was primarily a presentation by PlaceWorks, the outside firm preparing the new Master Plan. A SPON-produced video of this third public meeting is available here.

AutoNation Proposal Withdrawn (November 7, 2016): At its October 6 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended denial of a massive AutoNation Porsche dealership proposal, which which was not part of the revitalization planning and caught many nearby residents by surprise (see SPON video for August 18 Planning Commission meeting). Cut back into the bluff, it would have occupied the entire north side of PCH from the largely-vacant new Mariner’s Pointe building at Dover Drive to McDonald’s, with roof-top parking and elevator shafts towering 50 feet above the highway. An appeal by AutoNation was expected to be heard by the City Council at a special Monday evening meeting on November 7, 2016. However, impacted neighbors had been circulating a petition against the project and it was announced that AutoNation had withdrawn their application.

Mariners’ Mile Revitalization Master Plan Community Workshop (September 2016)
The second public workshop was held as a noticed Planning Commission study session on Monday, September 26 at 6:00 pm at Marina Park. Attendance was good, despite it being a presidential election debate night. A video recording of this second Community Workshop is available here.

Mariners’ Mile Revitalization Master Plan Community Workshop (July 2016)
The July 25 Community Workshop was literally standing-room only for the crowd that attended the event. It obviously attracted many more people than the organizers had planned. Attendees were split into groups and asked to share ideas for the area. A video recording of this first Community Workshop is available here.

City Staff unveils drive for “revitalization” of Mariners Mile (May 24, 2016)
At a sparsely attended May 24, 2016, City Council afternoon “study session,” following an OCTA presentation on the results of the OCTA/Caltrans “Pacific Coast Highway Corridor Study” (agenda Item SS4), the City’s Public Works staff conducted (as agenda Item SS5) a “West Coast Highway / Mariners’ Mile Capacity Discussion.” At the regular evening meeting, the Planning Division presented as agenda Item 8, and the Council approved, a contract with the outside land use consulting firm PlaceWorks, and one of its principals, Woodie Tescher, to “develop a Revitalization Master Plan for Mariners’ Mile.”

City staff has apparently been meeting with the developers and initially said it planned to submit a draft master plan to the Planning Commission in October and to the City Council by the end of the year. Sound like a rush job?

Need for “Citizens Advisory Panel” stealthily removed (May 26, 2015)
In the Council’s May 26, 2015, budget approval for FY2015-16, in which an unspent $222,299 was “re-budgeted” for the same project described below (now known as “Project No.: 15T06“.  In the project description, the tense was changed and the word “possibly” inserted before “Citizens Advisory Panel” : “Staff is working with Mariners Mile property owners and possibly a Citizens Advisory Panel to review the ultimate street configuration and multi-model use of Coast Highway through Mariners Mile. Corresponding land uses and parking requirements of the adjacent properties also are being reviewed.” [emphasis added]

Council budgets money for “Mariners Mile Configuration and Land Use Review” (June 10, 2014)
The City budget for FY2014-15, as approved at the Council’s June 20, 2014, meeting included a $300,000 capital improvement project (“CAP15-0017“) with the above title, and the following description: “Staff will work with Mariners Mile property owners and a Citizens Advisory Panel to review the ultimate street configuration and multi-model use of Coast Highway through Mariners Mile. Corresponding land uses and parking requirements of the adjacent properties will also be reviewed.”  [emphasis added]

Helpful Links

Press Links

General Plan update

General Plan Update  . . .  as of May 2017

Latest News:  At the Corona del Mar Residents Association‘s May 18, 2017, meeting, the City’s Community Development Director, Kimberly Brandt, and Deputy Director, Brenda Wisneski, gave a presentation entitled “Local Coastal Plan Amendments (Shoreline Properties) & future General Plan Update Project” (see the agenda).   As part of the latter presentation, they distributed a flyer describing their vision of the GPU project.  Although none of this, including the funding, has yet been approved by the City Council, the flyer indicates they see the present calendar year being used to select an outside consultant and appoint an Advisory Committee.  Work on actually revising the General Plan would begin in January 2018, with adoption expected in March or April 2020.  That, of course, does not preclude staff and others from deciding what they want in the plan before the Committee ever meets.  Indeed, from past experience, that seems a quite possible scenario, with an outline of the expected revisions frequently being presented at the first meeting of such a committee, with the remainder of the time being spent waiting for the committee to agree to the consultant’s recommendations — at the end of which they are congratulated for their “hard work.”

Project Overview:  While details remain sketchy, Mayor Kevin Muldoon has announced the initiation of an update of the city’s General Plan as a major objective for the current City Council term.

Why We Were Watching:  Although SPON has repeatedly called for the development of “comprehensive” plans for specific areas of the city, such as Mariners Mile, West Newport Mesa and the Airport Area, this city proposal is different and could have worrisome consequences.   In 2006, the General Plan update process was used, without the full understanding of most residents, to expand and “reset” the Greenlight development thresholds throughout the city.  By by approving the update, voters in effect gave the “Greenlight” to future projects they assumed they would be given a second chance to vote on, such as the two recently erected high-rise office towers (PIMCO and Irvine Company) in Newport Center and the massive 524-unit Villas Fashion Island apartment project at the corner of Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills Road.

With greater public awareness, a similar, but even more fast-tracked and developer-driven General Plan update effort in 2013-2014 was overwhelmingly rejected when approval of the land use changes was placed on the ballot as Measure Y.

While city staff has indicated the present update may not even touch the critical land use limits needing voter approval, Council members have mentioned hoping to see the matter on the November 2018 ballot — which implies that it will.

Whatever the process turns out to be, for the sake of “our town” close watchfulness will be needed to ensure the General Plan modifications are resident-driven rather than developer-driven.

Recent Events:

City Manager Dave Kiff described his proposal for the update process in a PowerPoint slide presented at the Council’s February 14, 2017, study session.

It is expected that funding for the update ($1 million in the first year and another $1 million later) will be requested in the budget year beginning July 1, 2017.

The most recent indications from senior planning staff are that the actual work will not start until “late” in the calendar year.  This makes it seem unlikely staff expects to place any major changes in land use limits on the November 2018 ballot for Greenlight approval, as was done with Measure Y.

News Coverage

Helpful Links

Koll Center Residences

Koll Center Residences . . . as of January, 2017

Project Overview:  This is a proposal to add 260 condominium residences in three 150 foot tall towers in what is now the surface parking lot of an office campus near the corner of Jamboree and Birch in the Airport Area.  See the city webpage for further details.

Why We Were Watching:  This project raises multiple issues about height, density, compatibility with neighboring uses, as well as the viability of the General Plan’s vision for adding residential to the Airport Area, and whether it is being properly implemented.

Recent Events:

A scoping meeting for the project’s Environmental Impact Report was held on January 18, 2017, with comments due by February 2.  The EIR is presumably now being prepared.

News Coverage

Helpful Links

 

Museum House Update

Petition successful — Council repeals approvals — Court challenge pending

Latest news:  Court denies LITS’ motion to dismiss OCMA litigation

In a ruling filed on May 26, 2017, the Honorable Geoffrey Glass, the judge handling the OCMA litigation, denied LITS’ request to have OCMA’s legal challenges to the referendum petition dismissed as a “SLAPP” suit.  That means the litigation will take many expensive months to resolve, with the next “case management” hearing set for September 11.

Judge Glass felt that LITS was not the proper party to be bringing an anti-SLAPP motion, but even if they had been, he thought compliance with the technical procedural requirements of the Elections Code (which OCMA alleges were violated by the format of the petition) was a “content neutral” issue, and not a constitutionally protected activity against which an anti-SLAPP motion could be brought.

May 22 @ 1:30 pm Museum House Trial — Hearing on LITS anti-SLAPP motion
Main County Central Justice Center Courthouse in Santa Ana, Courtroom C32 (ninth floor)

As explained below, the Orange County Museum of Art has brought a suit against the City and its residents seeking to invalidate the Museum House referendum petition, and all the Council’s actions based on it, citing alleged technical violations in the petition’s form and content.

On his May 22 afternoon docket, the Honorable Geoffrey Glass, the judge in the case, heard an “anti-SLAPP” motion brought by the Line In The Sand PAC seeking to dismiss OCMA’s filings as a meritless “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” Barring appeal, success in this would end OCMA’s case and end all doubts about the validity of the Council’s repeal of the Museum House approvals. Public attendance is welcome and encouraged.

The purpose of anti-SLAPP motions is to prevent vengeful suits, brought without any legal chance of success, to punish persons exercising their constitutionally-protected rights of free speech and petition. SPON and LITS feel strongly that OCMA has no chance, in the end, of convincing the judge that the alleged minor technical deficiencies in the petition were enough to justify his invalidating the petition.  However, the success of the anti-SLAPP motion hinges on two highly technical questions raised by OCMA:  (1) whether LITS is the proper entity to be bringing the motion, and (2) whether challenges to technical deficiencies of petitions are subject to anti-SLAPP motions (there being one previous case suggesting they are not, and another suggesting they are).

If the anti-SLAPP motion fails, the litigation will continue, with a hearing at some future date to determine the merits of whether the technical deficiencies of the petition were sufficient to justify its invalidation.

In the unlikely event that the petition is invalidated as a result of that later trial, a separate case remains pending.  That case contends that the City Charter’s “Greenlight” provision separately requires the Council’s approval of the General Plan Amendment making the Museum House possible, if left standing, to be submitted to the voters before it can become effective — essentially reviving the referendum, but without the need for a petition.

The Orange County Superior Court case number for the present case, “Orange County Museum of Art vs. City Council of Newport Beach,” is 30-2017-00896448-CU-PT-CJC.

The Central Justice Center is the high-rise courthouse building at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana.

Other recent news:

On January 25, 2017, the Newport Beach City Clerk received word from the Orange County Registrar of Voters that enough signatures had been validated on the Museum House referendum petition to qualify it for action by the City Council.  In fact, based on the sample tested by the Registrar, it appears that in less than two weeks the circulators obtained more than twice the required number – representing nearly a quarter of all registered voters in Newport Beach.  This is particularly remarkable in view of the campaign of deception and intimidation waged by the developer against the petition.

The certification result was presented to the City Council as Item 21 at their February 14, 2017, meeting.

As Item 15 on their February 28 agenda, the Council voted 5:2 to begin the process of repealing all their previous Museum House approvals, with the exception of the certification of the EIR, by introducing a proposed ordinance.   This is a less costly option legally available to the Council — chosen, presumably, because the result of holding an actual election seemed to them a foregone conclusion.

The actual adoption of the repeal ordinance was completed with a second reading as Item 5 on the Council’s March 14 “consent calendar.”  The repeals will become effective 30 days thereafter.

This is with an understanding that OCMA is contesting the validity of the petition in the Orange County Superior Court.  On March 8, the court denied OCMA’s request for an order preventing the Council from taking further action on the petition.  Unless the court ultimately finds the petition invalid, the repeals will stand and state election law will bar the Council, for the following year, from considering a General Plan amendment for the OCMA property similar to the defeated Museum Tower proposal.

For further details on the status of the Museum House referendum please visit the LITS website at LineInTheSandPAC.com.


Project Overview: The Museum House is a proposal for a 25-story, 295 foot tall, 100-unit luxury condo tower to replace the one story Orange County Museum of Art in Newport Center.

Why We’re Watching: We feel the project would, in fact, violate both the letter and spirit of Greenlight and are making a case for it to be put to a vote. You can watch the video recording of the April 7 study session which is included in SPON’s Video Library.

The Greenlight issue revolves around 79 residential units (out of the 100 allowed without a vote).  An earlier City Council, without processing a General Plan amendment, already allowed units above and beyond the voter-approved General Plan limit for Newport Center.

However, City staff and the current City Council refuse to accept this, forcing residents to reclaim their right to vote by circulating petitions for a referendum on the Council’s approval.

Project history:

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued in March.  The NOP identifies issues that should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).  SPON submitted comments on the NOP, which you can read here.

A standing-room-only crowd attended an April 7, 2016, Planning Commission Study Session on this proposal. The applicants were present, but spent most of their time explaining why the project is consistent with a plan presented for Fashion Island in the 1960s and does not require a Greenlight vote.  Read an extract of Public Comments here.

The City Council requested an April 26, 2016, discussion (Agenda Item #14) of the competing applications for new residential development in Newport Center (Museum House and 150 Newport Center).  At it, City staff skirted  the Greenlight issue, insisting it doesn’t exist.

The Draft EIR was released for a 45-day public review period beginning August 17 and ending September 30, 2016.  See announcement here.

The developer made a presentation at the August 20 meeting of Speak Up Newport (SUN).  The SUN meeting video is available on the city’s website as “Residents Speak Up About Museum House”.

During that time, the Planning Commission held a second study session on September 1, 2016, which can be reviewed on the SPON video channel.  At the study session proponents outnumbered opponents.  It might be noted that the proponents see this primarily as a fund-raising opportunity for OCMA, which hopes to build a new museum in Costa Mesa using the profits from the rezoning. Fund-raising, however well intentioned, is not necessarily good planning.

The Planning Commission ultimately disposed of the application in a single hearing on October 20, recommending approval without any modifications, and the the City Council did the same on November 29, with only Council member Tony Petros dissenting.  Technically, only the General Plan land use change from “Private Institutional” to “Multiple Residential — 100 units” and the Environmental Impact Report were given final approval on November 29, with the remaining items approved on the Consent Calendar at the Council’s largely ceremonial December 13 meeting (prior to the three newly-elected Council members taking their seats).

Immediately following the November 29 vote, Line in the Sand, an independent Political Action Committee that supports many of SPON’s objectives, prepared to circulated a referendum petition demanding the Council’s decision be revisited in a citywide public vote.  The start of signature gathering was delayed by burdensome conditions gratuitously placed on the petition by the Council, and the actual gathering was vigorously obstructed by the developer.  Despite those obstacles, more than twice the required number of signatures was collected in less than two weeks, as detailed above and below.

The City Council is expected to receive notice of the adequacy of the petition on February 14, at which meeting they will have to choose between repealing their November 29 approval or placing it on a future ballot for the public to decide.

Next Steps: 

There’s no question that most residents have had ENOUGH.  Wouldn’t it be nice if developers stopped wasting their time (and ours) proposing projects that are totally outsized and detrimental to the neighborhoods that surround them? We’re not there yet, and it will be a challenge – but “Our Town” is worth the effort it is taking to get there.

SPON and the Line in the Sand Political Action Committee continue to follow the process closely.  Please visit the LITS website for further details and a complete timeline of the referendum process.


Press Coverage:   Your letters and newspaper articles continue to appear in both the Daily Pilot and the Newport Beach Independent.  Here’s a slightly out-of-date sampling in case you missed them.  For links to more recent coverage, visit the LITS website.

Opponents of Museum House condo tower vow referendum effort to overturn Newport council’s OK  … Daily Pilot November 30, 2016
Residents Speak Up About Museum House . . . Newport Beach Independent August 12, 2016
Letter Exchange . . . Newport Beach Indy April 8, 2016
Museum House Needs a Greenlight Vote . . . Newport Beach Indy March 26 2016 
Condo Tower at Odds with Residents . . . Newport Beach Indy March 26, 2016
When in Drought . . . Newport Beach Indy March 26, 2016

and also
Museum’s Future Hinges on Condo Tower . . . Newport Beach Indy April 15, 2016
Conflict of Interest . . . Newport Beach Indy April 10, 2016
A Race to Avoid Public Vote . . . Daily Pilot April 10, 2016

Keep the dialog open in the press.  Continue sending your letters to editors and let them know we continue to oppose projects such as the Museum House which require General Plan Amendments and violate the character of “Our Town.”  Be sure to include your name, city of residence and phone number (not for publication; for editors to check with you if questions)


Past Update History Below

Museum Tower Petition Drive Succeeds a Week Ahead of Schedule – Signatures Being Counted!

Our understanding is that the Line in the Sand political action committee, through an extraordinary team effort by principals, volunteers and supporters, was able, in less than two weeks, to obtain nearly twice the number of signatures needed for a successful referendum.  Having determined their goal had been far exceeded, LITS decided to submit the completed Museum Tower Referendum petition books (constituting nearly two tons of paper!) to the City’s Elections Official (the City Clerk) this morning, December 21 — a full week earlier than legally required.

It is now up to the City to verify that the requisite number of signatures was indeed obtained.  They have about six weeks for that, after which the City Council will be required to either withdraw their approval of the land use change, or put it to a citywide public vote.

For further details, photos and video of the petition delivery, and still more information about what’s next for the Museum House — all soon to be posted — visit the LITS website at LineInTheSandPAC.com.

Although IRS constraints prevented SPON for participating directly in the later phases of the petition effort, SPON commends this remarkable outpouring of volunteerism, and this exceptional demonstration of the tremendous interest the public in general has in the quality of life in Newport Beach.

Congratulations to all!


December 21, 2016 . . . referendum petitions submitted for approval

Important update: the start of signature gathering for the Museum House Tower referendum was delayed by a City Council action on November 29 adding thousands of pages of documentation to the paper petitions on which the signatures have to be affixed to legally request a citywide vote on the Council’s controversial decision– thereby significantly shortening the already very short time in which signatures have to be collected. Meanwhile forces aligned with developer have been engaging in a number of questionable practices intended to confuse and distract potential signers.  The true 10-pound paper petitions that need to be signed by the end of the year just began becoming available from the printer on Wednesday, December 7, and initial supplies are limited.

Please visit the Line in the Sand PAC website for the most current information on where and how to sign this important petition.  Every signature counts!

Latest update (Dec. 21):  Realizing it had reached nearly twice its signature gathering goal in less than two weeks, LITS submitted the completed petition books a full week ahead of the legal deadline.  It is now up to the City to certify the referendum.  Barring legal challenges, the City Council will then have to either repeal the General Plan land use change that made the Museum Tower possible, or put it to a citywide public vote.  Stay tuned…


Focus on the Goal!

Over this last weekend, the Museum House developer (Related California) and its affiliate (OCMA Urban Housing LLC) have employed a myriad of tactics to create confusion and false information about the referendum and signature-gathering process.

For those of you who intend to support the Referendum, please remember this: We must all stay focused on the goal of collecting the required number of validated signatures to qualify the Referendum for a vote. Line in the Sand PAC has just three weeks to do this, and these opposition tactics divert our time and attention from our goal.

Our LITS volunteers and supporters are razor-focused on the goal of collecting 8,000 signatures for validation by the Registrar of Voters before the end of December. We ask that you stay focused too.

For more information about the Referendum, including dates, times and locations where you can go to sign the petitions, please visit LineInTheSandPAC.com .

SPON


Council approves “Museum House” Tower — referendum begins

Important update:  the start of signature gathering for the Museum House referendum has been delayed by a City Council action on November 29 adding thousands of pages of documentation to the paper petitions on which the signatures have to be affixed to legally request a citywide vote on the Council’s controversial decision– thereby significantly shortening the already very short time in which signatures have to be collected.  Meanwhile forces aligned with developer have been engaging in a number of questionable practices intended to confuse and distract potential signers. Please be patient.  The true paper petitions that need to be signed by the end of the year are expected to begin becoming available from the printer on Wednesday, December 7.  However, initial supplies may be limited.

Many thanks to all who signed the previous joint SPON/LITS online petition opposing Related Companies’ proposal for the Museum House Tower, a 100 unit, 25-story, 295 foot tall high density condo tower that would replace the current low-rise Orange County Museum of Art galleries at 850 San Clemente Drive in the northwestern part of the Newport Center / Fashion Island area.  A recap of the petition results and comments as presented to the City Council at their special November 29th meeting can be viewed on the City’s website here.

Despite that outstanding effort, the City Council voted 6 to 1 (with Councilman Tony Petros opposed) to change the land use designation of the OCMA parcel from “Private Institutional” to “Multi-unit Residential – 100 units,” as well as a number of other actions allowing use of that new designation to begin construction of the “Museum House” Tower, contingent upon final approval at the Council’s December 13th meeting.

Pursuant to the terms of the Greenlight section of the City Charter, and coming on top of other recent additions to Newport Center, SPON firmly believes this November 29th change to the General Plan should have automatically gone to a citywide vote.  However, the City Council disagrees, forcing residents to reclaim their right to vote by referendum.  That arduous process requires residents to obtain the signatures of roughly 5,600 Newport Beach registered voters on legally correct paper petitions within the next 30 days.

SPON and the Line in the Sand Political Action Committee are in the process of initiating just such a referendum; and it is important to understand these are completely different from any paper or online petitions you may have signed before (as in the recap, above).  If successful, the new petitions will force the Council to either repeal their approval of the land use change, or put it on hold until the voters can affirm or reject the approval at a future election.

To make this a success, everyone will have to help.  Further information on what you can do will follow soon.  But please visit LineInTheSandPAC.com for the most accurate and up-to-date details.

Thank you all again…  the battle has begun!


Project Update – March 18, 2016

Scoping Session Public Meeting Overview: The Museum House project brought a standing room only crowd to the Newport Beach Civic Center Community Room meeting on February 22.  The meeting was a scoping session to elicit comments about what should be studied in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a 100-unit residential tower in Newport Center.  Residents from all parts of the City shared their concerns about this plan to build a 26-story Miami-style condo tower right in the middle of Newport Center.  It is projected to be 315 feet high, replacing the one-story OC Museum of Art which is moving to Costa Mesa.  It would be directly behind the sprawling apartment complex The Irvine Company is building at the corner of San Joaquin Hills and Jamboree Roads (made possible with the approval of the 2006 General Plan Update but kept under the radar until after the Measure Y vote).

Interestingly, the applicants did not introduce themselves, and only provided vague renderings of what the ground floors of the tower might look like.

Comments by participants covered a wide range of issues, from water/energy and public services to aesthetics including views and skylines, noise pollution, traffic and precedent-setting for increasing density and heights.  There were interesting points about unlivable parking situations with existing apartment/condo complexes in Newport Beach and of the possible dangers a tower that size could face from earthquakes and stray JWA departures.

Our Next Steps: The public comment period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) closed on March 7, 2016.  SPON submitted comments on the NOP, which you can read here.  The NOP identifies issues that should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . . . which will have a public comment period as well.  It is important to ensure that the EIR is inclusive of all issues, which is why the NOP is so important.    We encourage everyone to share their concerns about the impact this project would have on our community.

Once the EIR is ready, the public will have 45 days to comment on it. So please check back here starting early Spring.

April 7 Planning Commission Meeting:  At this time, a preliminary review of the Museum House Project, along with a holistic review of Newport Center development proposals,  is being planned for the April 7 Planning Commission Meeting at 6:30 pm in the Civic Center Council Chambers.  Let’s make this another Standing Room Only community meeting.  Watch our website for more details as we get closer to this date.  Review the Initial Study here.

Press Coverage:   Letters and newspaper articles have appeared in both the Daily Pilot and the Newport Beach Independent.  Here’s a recent sampling in case you missed them.

Banning Ranch Development Project

Image of Banning Ranch shared by another organization against its development
(Nature Commission)

Breaking news: March 30, 2017

The California Supreme Court has concluded the litigation described below by issuing a unanimous finding that the City’s environmental analysis was inadequate and misleading.

This effectively invalidates the project approvals granted by the City in 2012.

The courts ruling can be read here (PDF).

Latest Update: September 10, 2016
Great news!  With much anticipation, the California Coastal Commission met in Newport Beach on September 7th to consider the application for development on the Banning Ranch property.   After lengthy debate in a packed City Council Chambers, the Commission, with 1 of its 12 members (Chair Steve Kinsey) recused and another (Wendy Mitchell) absent, voted 9:1 to reject the application – even though it was significantly scaled back from what the City had OK’d in 2012.

According to press reports, if the developer wishes to pursue their project, they will have to wait a minimum of six months, after which they can start over with an entirely new application to the Coastal Commission.  Whether that would require a new City approval is unclear.

Meanwhile, a legal challenge to the City’s original approval, brought by the Banning Ranch Conservancy, remains to be decided by the California Supreme Court (Case S227473, details here).  The conservancy contends the City violated its General Plan in 2012 by granting an approval without first working with state agencies (including the Coastal Commission) to delineate which portions of the property were developable and which were not.

We understand the Sierra Club Banning Ranch Park & Preserve Task Force and Banning Ranch Conservancy – two groups which have for years led the charge on environmental issues related to Banning Ranch development proposals – will be meeting on September 21 and 28, respectively, to review the September 7th Coastal Commission action and consider their next steps (details here).  SPON supports their efforts.

Press reports:

Is Banning Ranch developer’s environmental marketing the real deal? (OC Register, September 17, 2016)

How ordinary folks waged battle against money and power (Steve Lopez, LA Times, September 10, 2016)

Despite vote, Banning Ranch development could still be built (KPPC, September 9, 2016)

Is the Banning Ranch proposal really dead? A look at where the OC coastal project goes from here (LA Times, September 8, 2016)

After rejection of development plan, Banning Ranch owner weighs next move (LA Times, September 8, 2016)

A good day for the Coastal Commission, and conservation, in Newport Beach (Steve Lopez, LA Times, September 10, 2016)

After development rejected at Banning Ranch, activists see a possibility to preserve (OC Register, September 7, 2016)

Banning Ranch project denied by Coastal Commission, ending 20-year battle — for now (OC Register, September 7, 2016)

Coastal Commission Denies Banning Ranch (Newport Beach Independent, September 8, 2016)

More from Google…

Background

Banning Ranch is the last and the largest parcel of privately owned coastal open space remaining in Orange County. It is located at the mouth of the Santa Ana River, nestled between Newport Beach, Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa. It consists of more than 400 acres of coastal wetlands and adjacent coastal mesa. Having served for oil production for the last 70 years, Banning Ranch has escaped the dense residential development characteristic of the surrounding cities. Over time it has evolved into a private wildlife preserve.

In 2006, the voters of Newport Beach approved a General Plan that made preservation of the entire property as open space the highest priority for Banning Ranch. Yet in July of 2012, Newport Beach City Council approved a Project of development resorting to a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” to rationalize away the “significant and unavoidable” impacts cited throughout the EIR.

In October 2015, the Coastal Commission staff identified the correct acreage of 11.5 acres available for development and recommended denial of the Coastal Development Permit for Banning Ranch. But rather than deny the project the Coastal Commission instructed the developer to work with Coastal staff to work together to come up with a reduced project.

The applicant, Newport Banning Ranch LLC is a partnership between AERA Energy, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Exxon-Mobil and Shell, and Cherokee Investment Partners, a $2.2 Billion developer from the East Coast. A revised application that has been submitted to the Coastal Commission (hearing May 12) consists of 895 residential units, commercial space and a hotel to be built on the mesa portion of the property in areas where oil wells will be decommissioned. Separately, their oil and gas proxy, Horizontal Development has a filed for a separate Coastal Development Permit for a new Oil Production facility, up to 100 new oil and gas wells and truck bearing maintenance road along the scenic and environmentally sensitive Semeniuk Slough.

The partial list of impacts:

  • Destruction and permanent loss of natural habitats and open space: The property has 200 acres of degraded wetlands with no development potential and 200 acres of coastal mesas and bluffs. This site has more than 225 acres of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA). It is a nesting and wintering ground to endangered and threatened species (listed at http://savenewportbanningranch.org under Biology).
  • Destruction and permanent loss of sacred cultural sites: California’s Native American Heritage Commission listed Banning Ranch as a sacred site
  • Unknown and unsafe impacts to our environment: The developer plans to excavate and stockpile 2.8 million cubic yards of soil over 10 years to prepare the land for development, destroying the environment and exposing the public to unknown levels of contaminants.
  • Air pollution: Air pollution from construction and traffic will exceed state standards. Greenhouse gas emissions will contribute considerably to the Greenhouse Gas Inventory, accelerating global climate change and rising sea levels.
  • Noise Pollution: Construction and traffic noise will double allowable noise thresholds.
  • Traffic: 15,000+ more car trips on our roads, daily! Expect double and triple commutes, gridlocked intersections.

We urge you to reiterate that this development permit should be denied at the Coastal Commission Hearing at the Newport Beach City Hall May 12, 2016!  The goal for Banning Ranch should be the preservation, acquisition, conservation, restoration and maintenance of the site as a permanent public open space, park and coastal nature preserve.

Banning Ranch Conservancy Information:
Website
Email Subscription Request

Save Newport Banning Ranch Information:
Website

Questions for SPON:
Contact Us  


Past Update History

Update August 23, 2016: Coastal Commission Hearing & Vote Scheduled for September 7 here in Newport Beach
The Coastal Commission will meet and vote on the Banning Ranch project at its Newport Beach meeting on September 7. The Coastal Commission, the City of Newport Beach and the developer have all agreed on the timing and the location. The Banning Ranch hearing will be heard as Item 14d (Agenda here).  Hearing procedure available here.  For more information, visit the Banning Ranch Conservancy website.

Here are a few immediate and important action items for you to consider:

  • Like and share the newly released Banning Ranch video
  • Read the last Coastal Commission Staff Report from May 2016 when the item was postponed
  • Submit comments to the California Coastal Commission staff using this special email address:  BanningRanchComments@coastal.ca.gov
  • Email, text or call in questions or offers to volunteer to the Banning Ranch Conservancy: Email Address: Info@BanningRanchConservancy.org  or Text/Call 714-719-2148
  • Spread the Word using your personal networks

Newport Banning Ranch Project Documents as of July 2016
All the following documents are available for viewing and/or downloading here.

  • Final Project Transmittal and all attachments
    • Project Description
    • Site Plan
    • Coastal Commission Staff Recommendation
    • Site Conditions
    • Coastal Commission Staff Land Use Recommendations
    • Features

Developer Seeks More Space to Build . . .
Daily Pilot Article: June 29, 2016

Newport Beach Fire Department Analysis for Coastal Commission
“Fire and the resulting products of combustion are a continual threat to the community . . . ” The complete analysis can be read here.

Acreage Comparison Report
Provided to Coastal Commission by Newport Banning Ranch

The full report can be read here.


Update April 28, 2016:  Coastal Commission Hearing on May 12, 2016
The Coastal Commission hearing will be held on May 12, 9:00 am, at the Newport Beach Civic Center, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach.   This hearing could very well decide the fate of the Banning Ranch. A standing-room-only turnout is needed!  The Coastal Commission Staff Report for the proposed project at Banning Ranch can be downloaded here.

Here are a few immediate and important action items for you to consider:


Update August 1, 2015: Coastal Commission Meeting October 7/8, 2015:
The Banning Ranch Conservancy and the Quality of Life Coalition are urging everyone to attend the California Coastal Commission hearing on the Banning Ranch October 7/8 at the Long Beach City Council Chambers. This Commission could decide the fate of the Banning Ranch. This is it . . . a large turnout is needed! Let this Commission know that the community opposes the Banning Ranch development.

Sign up now for a seat on the bus.   Transportation will be provided.

Sign the online letter to the Coastal Commission.  Better yet, personalize the message to your liking. It only takes 30 seconds!

Don’t trust the Trust! The Newport Banning Land Trust was created and is supported by the developers of the Banning Ranch. Watch this short video to learn more.


Update March 18, 2015:  Presentation to the Newport Beach Women’s Democratic Club by Banning Ranch Conservancy and SPON:   The Banning Ranch:  Fact vs. Fiction was presented in partnership by Banning Ranch Conservancy and SPON at the March monthly meeting of the Women’s Democratic Club.  A copy of the presentation is here.


Update March 17, 2015:  Caring People, United in a Worthy Cause, Can Make Things Happen! By Suzanne Forster:   On Thursday, March 12, at the California Coastal Commission Enforcement Hearing in Chula Vista, the Commission reached a Settlement Agreement (http://www.banningranchconservancy.org/index.html) with Newport Banning Ranch LLC (NBR), the developer, regarding violations of the Coastal Act charged by the Commission against the developer.  Without admitting guilt, NBR agreed to stop committing the alleged violations and perform actions (restoration, mitigation and dedication of permanent open space) to correct them. The heart of the victory was that the annual mowing of 40 to 50 acres of critical habitat has been stopped allowing coastal sage scrub to return to these areas.

Over 60+ people rode the bus to Chula Vista and many other supporters drove down to carry tables, banners and supplies. This large turn-out sent a powerful message to both the Commissioners and the developer demonstrating that citizens can and do make a difference.

We will never be able to outspend the developer, but with help from supporters, existing and new, we can show that citizens working together will make a difference.  Here’s how —


Original Post February 2015: Petition to Halt Habitat Destruction at Banning Ranch by Suzanne Forster:  The California Coastal Commission Enforcement Staff has cited the owners of Banning Ranch—Newport Banning Ranch LLC and West Newport Oil Company, the oil field operator—with two major violations of the Coastal Act.  The violations are unpermitted habitat destruction and unpermitted oil field operations. The Banning Ranch Conservancy has initiated a petition asking the California Coastal Commission to permanently halt this habitat destruction and to ensure permanent restoration and protection of the degraded habitat on Banning Ranch.  The petition will be presented to the commissioners at the March Enforcement Hearing (details below).  A large number of signatures will tell the commissioners that the public is serious about protecting our finite coastal resources.

Please sign the petition here.

The Enforcement Hearing is expected to be scheduled during the regular monthly Coastal Commission hearing on March 11-13 at the Chula Vista Council Chambers in Chula Vista (meeting information here); South Coast District (future agenda items here).  The exact date of the hearing will also be posted to the Banning Ranch Conservancy website when it’s available.

Newport Banning Ranch LLC and West Newport Oil Company (the oil field operator) were recently cited for two major violations of the Coastal Act. The violations are for unpermitted habitat destruction and unpermitted oil field operations.  The CCC staff’s enforcement action against the Banning Ranch owners could result in a consent order or a unilateral hearing.

A consent order is an agreement between staff and the owners regarding the appropriate restoration and mitigation orders for the violations. Fines can also be levied. If no agreement is reached prior to the hearing, a unilateral hearing will be held, during which the Coastal Enforcement staff will present their case against the owners and the owners’ attorneys or representatives will respond. Interested parties, such as the Banning Ranch Conservancy and other environmental organizations can also make presentations that include expert witnesses. The Coastal Commissioners will hear all the testimony and make their decision.

Banning Ranch Conservancy Information:
Website
Petition

Email Subscription Request

Save Newport Banning Ranch Information:
Website

Questions for SPON:
Contact Us  

 

Harbor Pointe Senior Living

Harbor Pointe Senior Living  . . .  as of February, 2017

Project Overview:  This is a proposal to build a 4-story, 121-bed convalescent and congregate care facility at the current site of the Kitayama Restaurant on South Bristol.

Why We Were Watching:  Under the city’s General Plan, a project of this sort is not allowed at  the requested location, and hence its approval requires a General Plan amendment.  Such changes to the voter-approved land use designations are always of concern, and in this case neighbors have expressed worries about the building’s compatibility with neighboring residential uses.

Recent Events:

A scoping meeting for the project’s Environmental Impact Report was held on August 15, 2016, with comments due by August 22.  The EIR is presumably being prepared.

Prior to release of the EIR, the Planning Commission heard about and discussed the proposal, without action, as Item 4 on its February 23, 2017, agenda.  The “study session” was well attended by Bayview and Santa Ana Heights neighbors, most quite critical of the project as currently proposed.  See the City video.

News Coverage

Helpful Links

 

Newport Beach Tennis Club

Newport Beach Tennis Club . . . as of April 2017

Project Overview:  The Newport Beach Tennis Club (and swim facility) occupies 7.6 acres at 2601 Eastbluff Drive, adjacent to Ralphs in the Eastbluff Village Center.  Neighbors have heard rumors that the land owner has been approached by a developer interested in purchasing the property and turning it into residential condominiums

Why We Were Watching:  The rumored development is inconsistent with the property’s existing General Plan designation for Parks and Recreation use.  The current owner or potential buyer would therefore need to make a request to change that designation, and the City has no obligation to comply.  SPON views such requests to change the General Plan with great skepticism.

Recent Events:

  • February 14, 2017:  “Mayor Muldoon requested future agenda items on the zoning and future use of the Newport Beach Tennis Club and the roundabout at Bayside Drive” (see City Council Minutes, Item XII).
  • February 28, 2017: Council unanimously approves request for staff to prepare future agenda item providing a “Summary of the Existing General Plan Designation and Zoning for the Newport Beach Tennis Club” (see City Council Minutes, Item XIII).
  • April 11, 2017:  Although it was not on the agenda, under “City Council Announcements” at the April 11 meeting (Item XII), “Mayor Muldoon presented a proclamation to the Newport Beach Tennis Club commending its service to the community.”  Earlier that day, City Manager Dave Kiff sent the following message by email to those seeking information about the development proposal:

Dear Neighbors –

Via an email sent in late January 2017, I promised to keep you updated on activities regarding the Newport Beach Tennis Club.  Recently, an interested buyer of the underlying land and the property owner approached the City at a staff level (our planning staff) to determine what would be required to accommodate residential uses at the site.  Staff told them, as I told you previously, about the requirement for a change in the General Plan (via an Amendment) and the underlying zoning.

Changes in the General Plan are discretionary actions by the City Council – in other words, the Council can say yes or no to them.  In some cases, if enough residential is added or peak hour trips are added, a vote of the Newport Beach electorate is also required following any Council approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA).

Please know that we have not been notified by either the property owner or the interested buyer of their intent to begin processing a GPA and other related zoning actions.  Should an application be filed, I will let you know as well as provide information regarding the proposed review schedule and at what time you may comment on the proposed project.  The process will include public review and comment opportunities on any draft environmental document, as well as public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council.

One additional FYI.  At tonight’s Council meeting, Mayor Kevin Muldoon (also the District #4 representative) intends to give the Tennis Club a proclamation for its service to the community.  No other action is planned for tonight’s meeting.

Sincerely,

Dave Kiff
City Manager
City of Newport Beach
949-644-3001

  • To date (April 22, 2017), SPON does not believe any formal application for land use change has been submitted to the CIty.  The requested discussion of the zoning status of the property was at one time listed as a tentative Study Session item for the Council’s May 9 meeting, but it is not known if that is still planned.

News Coverage

  • none so far

Helpful Links

  • City’s case log of recent planning applications (not always accurate or up to date)

 

150 Newport Center

150 Newport Center . . . as of September 27, 2016
(formerly known as Newport Center Villas;  aka the Fashion Island car wash project)
.

Note: At least for the moment, this project is history: the application for it was WITHDRAWN moments before its planned hearing by the City Council on September 27.  One of the major financial investors is now suing the developers for fraud.

Project Overview: The 150 Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) as originally proposed was to be composed of 49 condominium homes totaling 163,260 square feet, in a seven-story, 75.5 foot high building. The unit mix was to include ten residential townhomes, 35 residential flats on Levels 3 through 6 and four penthouses on Level 7.  It was later reduced to a proposal for 35 units in 5 stories, and rather than regarding 150 Newport Center as a “planned community” of its own, it would be incorporated into the existing North Newport Center Planned Community District and be subject to its rules (although new rules would be invented for this parcel).

Why We Were Watching:  This project would have replace the one-story 8,500 square foot Beacon Bay Car Wash directly across from Muldoon’s in Fashion Island.  The structure height significantly deviates from the standard established for that area of Fashion Island.  And, the project introduces residents into a primarily commercial/retail neighborhood, which includes late-night operations which generate business-related noise and congestion.

Recent Events:
On June 23, 2016, while the Environmental Impact Report was available for public review, the Planning Commission held a preliminary Study Session on the project, at which many criticisms were voiced, both by the Commissioners and the public, which focused primarily on its lack of compatibility with the area.  (View SPON’s June 23 Planning Commission video here.)

On July 21, 2016, a slightly scaled down project began a three part hearing process before the Planning Commission, which was tasked with making a recommendation to the City Council.  The applicants offered a scaled down proposal for 45 units in a six-story, 65.5 foot tall building with fewer shared amenities.  City staff recommended the same number of units in a five-story, 55 foot tall building (in all cases, an extra 4 to 8 feet is allowed for rooftop appurtenances, such as elevator towers).

At that first formal hearing, the Commission expressed so much concern about the required planning amendments (view SPON’s July 21 Planning Commission video here) that the expected second hearing on August 4 was rescheduled to August 18 to give staff time to consider changes.

On August 18, the matter was heard starting rather late in the evening and the discussion was halted by a mandatory 11:30 pm adjournment time. The Commission primarily decided to ask staff to bring back a proposal in which, rather than creating a new “planned community” of its own, the 150 Newport Center parcel will be added to, and be governed by the same development standards as the existing planned community governing The Irvine Company’s commercial buildings in the interior of Block 100.

The discussion continued on September 1, at which meeting the Commission considered the EIR, the comments on the EIR, and details of the project and the development agreement (providing cash payments to the City as a “public benefit” to mitigate the impact and guarantee a right to the new development).  The hearing ended, at City staff’s instruction, in a “recommendation of denial” to the City Council (even though City policies are clear that a denial by the Planning Commission is supposed to go the Council only in the event of an appeal)

On September 26, the 150 Newport Center applicants asked for a continuance of the  Council hearing — purportedly so they could have more time to privately discuss their project with the Council members.  But on September 27, barely an hour before the hearing on the Planning Commission’s recommendation of denial was to start, it was announced they had withdrawn their application entirely.  According to City planning staff, this means they would have to start completely over again, with an entirely new application.

SPON and its supporters were very well represented, both with written comments and with speakers at the Planning Commission hearings.  We need to keep up this momentum to stop other proposed projects with a similar potential to negatively impact the character of Our Town!

Petition Recap

  • Our petition against the 150 Newport Center project closed with over 1,600 signatures gathered!
  • See recap here.

News Coverage

Helpful Links

Archives

 

The Residences at Newport Place

Project Update – July 2016: Back to the Drawing Board
City Council unanimously rejects developer’s appeal to overturn Planning Commission decision at Council’s July 26, 2016 meeting. 
(Video here . . . Staff Report here)  

Project Overview: The originally proposed project was composed of 384 residential units and 5,677 square feet of retail space, replacing an existing small shopping center. View the project proposal here (large file; takes a minute to load).

Why We’re Watching: Among other things, the proposal includes a request for “adjustments to development standards pertaining to building height”.  In other words, the developers are seeking an exception to the current building height (an example of SPOT ZONING).  The developers are also seeking a WAIVER of a General Plan Policy that requires them to dedicate a minimum of ½ acre for a neighborhood park.  Apparently, they don’t have room for a park (again . . . another example of SPOT ZONING). Read the Planning Commission Staff Report for yourself.

Recent Events:

March 2016: The Residences at Newport Place, an Airport Area proposed project,  went before the Planning Commission for an initial review on March 3, 2016.  Subsequent meetings scheduled for May were temporarily tabled as a result of concerns from both the public and the Planning Commission.

June 2016: The applicant requested a continuance and the project finally came back to the Planning Commission for review at their June 9 meeting.  SPON submitted comments to the Planning Commission on three separate occasions before the project came back to Planning Commission on June 9 (see Helpful Links below).  The Commission was further concerned about a lack of responsiveness to the comments received in March.  In a 4-1 vote they denied the developer’s request to continue the hearings and rejected the project.

July 2016: The developer appealed the decision to City Council and the appeal hearing was set for the Council’s July 26, 2016, meeting (Public Notice).  The City Council unanimously rejected the appeal, forcing the developer to start over with a completely new application if they wish to continue.

Next Step:  Let’s keep the standing-room-only momentum going! City meetings are great opportunities for residents to come together in a show of solidarity and for getting their comments included in the public record.

Helpful Links