From: Nancy Kerr
To: Grant, Robyn
Cc: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Save the garden
Date: April 19, 2026 8:39:21 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
April 19, 2026
Dear Ms. Grant:
Please preserve the Sculpture Garden adjacent to Newport Beach City Hall and do not build a police station on it. This park is a testament to the beauty of California native plants and is a wonderful resource for residents as well as guests to experience the best of California. The park was created because the city leaders allowed a builder to destroy an endangered habitat, a wetland.
To make up for this, the city agreed to put in a park with a wetland, which has become the Sculpture Garden. The City of Newport Beach was a forerunner, proving that restoring a degraded habitat with drought tolerant plants can be beautiful. Do not renege on the promise prior councils made. The plants, animals, insects and birds that have made that area home cannot just move elsewhere. Most of the “elsewhere” has been destroyed by houses, asphalt, and offices. Even reducing the size of the park means killing half the flora and fauna. They cannot just crowd closer together—the competition for resources is too strong, most will die. Native bees are at risk of extinction, and they depend on native plants. If we lose pollinators, we lose flowering and fruiting plants and all life on earth depends on plants.
There is a perfectly adequate piece of property on Dove Street, only four miles away, which has already had its native plants destroyed.
Put the police department there. I have lived in
Eastbluff in Newport Beach for 39 years. The police have always been excellent at doing their job and need an upgraded station.
Do not put the beauty of nature second to yet another boxy building. So much of the native coastal chaparral habitat has been destroyed. Prove that you care about preserving California for future generations. Preserve the native garden. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nancy Kerr
PO Box 9636
Newport Beach CA 92658
April 28, 2026
Non Agenda Item
Correspondence
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Appeal CCC approval of Housing Layer on Newport Beach Golf Course Date: April 20, 2026 8:48:10 AM
Attachments: y7x0gdou8rhmekg6rxwmr.png
favicon.ico
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant
to the Mayor and City
Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: Jim Auster <[email protected]>
Sent: April 20, 2026 5:41 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Jim Auster <[email protected]>; merrilee bliss <[email protected]>; M. Smith <[email protected]>; Linda Giedt <[email protected]>; Benny Hallock <[email protected]> Subject: Appeal CCC approval of Housing Layer on Newport Beach Golf Course
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
to California Coastal Commission Chairman, Members, and Staff I hereby appeal CCC 4/17/26 approval of Housing Opportunity Overlay on Newport Beach Golf Course. I submitted opposition letter copied below before 4/10 deadline but there was no staff or member recognition, response, mediation, or modifications to address important issues raised in that letter and in person at CCC 4/17 meeting. Please confirm appeal has been posted, if form is correct, if any additional information is needed, and please confirm my eligibility to file the appeal., ,
Thank you
Jim Auster
20401 Bayview Ave, Newport Beach CA 92660
9706187692
Link to objection letter submitted 4/10/26 to CCC and [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
letter to California Coastal
Commission.docx
dropbox.com
Appeal of Housing Overlay on
NBGC.docx
dropbox.com
April 7, 2026
To the California Coastal Commission,
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed approval of the Housing Layer and the rezoning of the Newport Beach Golf Course from its current Recreational Open Space designation to High-Density Housing.
The Newport Beach Golf Course is an invaluable community and environmental asset. Its current zoning as Recreational Open Space safeguards not only the character of the surrounding area but also the ecological balance, open vistas, and natural habitats that are vital to our coastal environment. Rezoning this land for high-density housing would irreversibly damage the integrity of the coastline, increase traffic congestion, strain public services, and diminish the recreational opportunities that residents and visitors currently enjoy.
High-density development in this sensitive coastal area directly contradicts the principles of the California Coastal Act, which prioritizes the protection of coastal resources, scenic beauty, and public access to open spaces. Approving such a drastic change would set a harmful precedent for the erosion of recreational spaces in favor of urban sprawl, undermining the very mission of the California Coastal Commission.
There are alternative site opportunities with high property owner demand for investment in housing development in areas already designated for urban or residential use that would not compromise the environmental and social value of Newport Beach Golf Course. Preserving this open space is essential to maintaining the quality of life, ecological health, and recreational opportunities that define our region. Newport Beach claim the Housing Overlay is needed to meet Element Housing required number of units is incorrect, more than enough housing applications are already being processed to meet Newport Beach Element mandate without building it on NBGC within Coastal protection boundary.
A petition to block Surf Park development of middle NBGC parcel was recently signed by 6100 Newport Beach voters and NB reversed approval to avoid a public vote. Housing on golf course will also be opposed by Newport voters.
Another petition with required 6100 signatures was approved for a community vote to limit housing to the minimum required Element number. NBGC is not needed for housing.
The John Wayne Airport Land Use Commission rejected development of Surf Park on golf course in high noise and crash zone directly under the flight path. NB Council over rode ALUC to approve the project but then reversed approval after 6100 signature public petition required a public vote. ALUC rejected NB revision of noise contour to allow housing in 65 db zone but NB overrode ALUC. If Overlay is approved ALUC will also reject housing directly under flight path in crash zone that will make NB taxpayers and CCC potentially liable for enormous crash and noise impacts to housing residents.
Housing on this site requires sewage pumping up to Mesa Drive and risks sewage pollution of Back Bay with a power outage. It is also in the tsunami and flood protection zone from historical flooding of Delhi Channel.
Santa Ana Specific Plan enacted when Santa Ana Heights was annexed by NB requites golf course to be permanent, see letter to NB copied below. The only highest safe and best use of this land is to leave it as it is now, golf course low density recreational with no impact to the environment, airport, our community, and the Back Bay.
https://www.google.com/search?
q=nnumber+of+housing+units+in+pipeline+in+nweport+beach+to+meet+Housing+Element+mandate+for+6th+cycle&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en- us&client=safari
City of Newport Beach (.gov) +3
Total Mandate (6th Cycle): 4,845 units, of which 1,456 are for very low-income and 930 for low-income households.
Pipeline Status: More than 5,000 units are currently in preliminary application stages, with a significant number being apartment developments.
Buffer Strategy: The city has approved plans for up to 8,174 units (via rezoning/density), intended to serve as a buffer to meet mandates in case projects are canceled.
Future Developments: A proposed "Responsible Housing Initiative" for the November 2026 ballot aims to cap new housing at 2,900 units, relying on those already in the pipeline to meet the state mandate.
RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE
March 16, 2026
Mayor Lauren Kleiman & Newport Beach City Council
100 Civic Center Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
[email protected]
Dear Mayor Kleiman & City Council Members,
As you are aware, Santa Ana Heights (SAH) was annexed into the city in two phases, in 2002 the area east of Irvine Ave and 2008 the area west of Irvine Ave. The annexation agreement was memorialized on September 10, 2002 and remains in full force.
SAH was content as a county island and did not seek annexation – the City approached us.
We were concerned city government would add another layer of regulation and bureaucracy to our lives while disregarding the unique character of SAH. Our fears have been confirmed.
Residents worked with the City and County for over fifteen years to develop an annexation agreement to maintain the unique characteristics of the area. The Heights includes a winery, equestrian property, traditional residential tracts, estate lots, mansions, 18-hole Newport Beach Golf Course and driving range.
These were hard-fought negotiations that encompassed many complex issues across multiple governmental jurisdictions including the City, County, a redevelopment agency, city, Coastal Commission, Mesa Water District, JWA Settlement Agreement, property tax transfers, and a utility undergrounding district.
As previously noted, the 2002 City/County Santa Ana Heights Annexation Agreement remains a legally controlling document. It specifically requires the City to seek the County’s consent for General Plan Amendments – including the City’s housing zoning overlay on the golf course. ALUC found the housing overlay INCONSISTENT with the Airport Environs Land Use Element (AELUP) on a 5-1 vote. This is the only attempt the City made to seek County approval, and it failed. As such, the City ignored other considerations of the Santa Ana Heights Annexation Agreement as it relates to the proposed development site south of Mesa Drive.
The unique characteristics of the Santa Ana Heights are codified in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (NB Municipal Code Chapter 21.90, specifically Section 21.90.020 SP-7(OSR) stating “Land Use and development standards for Santa Ana Heights shall be in accordance with Exhibit 21.90-1, “Land Use Map – Specific Plan District No. 7” and the provisions of this section
The plain language of the codified specific plan and enabling map DOES NOT allow any non-golf course uses like wave pools, Costco, apartments, commercial buildings or anything else – no matter how giddy the property owner, politicians and staff are to kill the golf course.
The city council’s October 29, 2025, Snug Harbor project approval – effectively killing the Newport Beach Golf Course and replacing it with a 15-acre, 10-million-gallon heated wave pool – sought to destroy the unique characteristic of SAH; ignored the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, zoning, and Annexation Agreement. In addition, you failed to acknowledge the long history of the underlying restrictive leases with the County and property owner for the long-term use as a golf course and related uses.
We were forced to circulate a successful citywide referendum petition triggering an election for the council’s unanimous Snug Harbor wave pool approval. Over 9600 signatures were collected in just 21 days. We are reminded of the perils of local government.
To your credit, facing the wrath of the community at the ballot box, the Council rescinded the General Plan Amendment approval of 40,000 square feet of commercial buildings on a site zoned for open space and recreation, whose sole purpose and intent is explicitly “to insure the long-term use and viability of the Newport Beach Golf Course” – not concrete.
In 1973 the Irvine Company leased the site to the Lane Family who graded the community golf course that remains today. It is a very challenging parcel for development due to its topography, proximity to JWA, water table, Delhi Channel, and restrictions of the FEMA Zone A flood hazard area. The Irvine Company understood these development barriers in 1973. Nothing has changed in 53 years – except additional binding restrictions of the SAH Annexation Agreement, SAH Specific Plan, zoning code, and Charter Section 423.
The front nine is owned in fee by Newport Golf Club LLC, comprised of long-time Newport residents. They want the highest and best use on a degraded parcel that is restricted for development. As you know, the back nine is owned by the County of Orange (JWA) and serves as the FAA Runway Protection Zone requiring open space and prohibiting permanent structures – in perpetuity.
We respect the private property rights of the respective families and their heirs. We also respect the decades of their investment in our community, both financial and philanthropic. They are an important part of the fabric that makes Newport Beach a vibrant community.
As elected officials you are often asked to balance the needs of the residents and development community. This is one of those moments.
We encourage you to keep an open mind and create a vehicle that preserves the unique character of Santa Ana Heights, while complying with the requisite Santa Ana Heights Annexation Agreement and Specific Plan, zoning code, Charter Section 423 and if necessary calling for a citywide vote for large commercial projects, and respect private property rights and honor the City’s commitment to Santa Ana Heights and the residents of Newport Beach.
Sincerely,
RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE
Sent to NBGC neighboring Bayview Heights community and NB City Council 4/12 Newport Beach City Council applied to California Coastal Commission for approval of housing overlay that rezones NBGC from recreational open space to high density residential. NB claims development of the golf course is needed and necessary to meet CA Element Housing mandate requiting 4800 units. NB Development Office application pipeline already has 2000 units in Airport Area, 5000 units total, see link below.. Public vote is scheduled in Nov. to limit housing to minimum required required to meet Element mandate. There is no need for any housing or any other development on NBGC open space recreation zone, in Coastal protection zone, in JWA crash zone, in JWA high 65db zone, in flood and tsunami zone, in high traffic zone, adjoining Back Bay wildlife zone, in violation of SAH Specific Plan, etc. Normally legitimate city Council decisions are by law exempt from personal liability claims but council and NB tax payers are not exempt from enormous potential liability for Council's reckless unjustifiable overruling of Airport Land Use Commission's rejection of development in 65db zone and crash zone directly under JWA flight path.
Council members justified their approval of Surf Park as a private property owner's right for highest best and most profitable land use but that was not justified and Surf Park approval has been reversed by public petition. Owners purchased the land from Irvine Ranch for a low price to build the golf course and have had a big return on their investment because golf is the only safe low density highest best appropriate and beneficial use directly under JWA flight path.
If CCC follows their staff recommendation to approve housing in this location I will ask commissioners if there is any purpose of the California Coastal Commission? Element Housing law exempts all regulations, zoning, existing land uses, environmental impacts, etc, but does not exempt requirement CCC approval of housing overlay . Except for a legal challenge, this may be our last chance to block administrative approval.
I will attend CCC meeting in Gonzoles on Friday. It is past 4/10 deadline to submit public comments but please send any comments, information, exhibits, photos, etc you would like me to add to the presentation.
Sent 4/13 to Seimone Jurgis, Newport Beach Director of Community Development, Assistant City Manager
Dear Seimone
Please send information on the number of housing unit applications being processed by Community Development in Airport Area and citywide, and if number may now exceed number required for NB to comply with Element mandate. If so will Council withdraw CCC housing overlay application based on now baseless claim that housing on NBGC open space is essential to meet Element mandate numbers. If enough housing on other sites is already in the pipeline, especially considering reversal of Surf Park approval and petition for vote to reduce housing numbers, Element mandate is moot, application is inaccurate and obsolete, and there is no public support to proceed with CCC application for housing on NBGC. If not withdrawn but approved by CCC housing overlay will be challenged in court.
Jim Auster
20401 Bayview Ave
9706187692
https://www.google.com/search?
q=nnumber+of+housing+units+in+pipeline+in+nweport+beach+to+meet+Housing+Element+mandate+for+6th+cycle&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en- us&client=safari
City of Newport Beach (.gov) +3
Total Mandate (6th Cycle): 4,845 units, of which 1,456 are for very low-income and 930 for low-income households.
Pipeline Status: More than 5,000 units are currently in preliminary application stages, with a significant number being apartment developments.
Buffer Strategy: The city has approved plans for up to 8,174 units (via rezoning/density), intended to serve as a buffer to meet mandates in case projects are canceled.
Future Developments: A proposed "Responsible Housing Initiative" for the November 2026 ballot aims to cap new housing at 2,900 units, relying on those already in the pipeline to meet the state mandate.
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Relocation of the Police Station
Date: April 20, 2026 12:25:42 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant
to the Mayor and City
Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: April 20, 2026 12:19 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Relocation of the Police Station
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
The relocation of our police department headquarters should be a “Greenlight” vote of the Newport Beach residents. The “approval decision” of this project is too controversial and too large an expenditure to just be left to a majority vote of the Newport Beach City Council. At a minimum this issue requires wide-spread notification to the residents of the pros and cons of all the options and their costs, as well as publicized open hearings/meetings. Newport Beach residents expect and deserve openness from their elected officials, particularly on expensive projects like this that impact the design and over-all livability of our community. Thank you for your consideration of my request for more openness. J. Jordon From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: DO NOT MOVE POLICE STATION TO THE PARK
Date: April 27, 2026 7:40:11 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant
to the Mayor and City
Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: Judy Weightman <[email protected]>
Sent: April 26, 2026 9:52 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: DO NOT MOVE POLICE STATION TO THE PARK
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Absurd idea. Inappropriate location. Destroy a park?
Please find another way,
Thanks
Judy Weightman
From: Ad lever
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: City Council 04/28/2026 Public Comment - Non-agenda Date: April 27, 2026 11:32:19 AM
Attachments: e-mail - Blom and Stapleton 04-2026 - Re Tidelands Mgmt.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Hello,
Please incorporate these materials into the agenda for the meeting of 04/28/2026, associated with public comments, non-agenda items.
Thank you,
Adam
From: Ad lever <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 10:27 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Tidelands Management Ad Hoc
Good day Gentlemen. Sending that below again : )
From: Ad lever <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2026 1:05 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Tidelands Management
Mayor Pro Tem Blom, and Councilmember Stapleton,
Instances of your “abundance of caution” at points during the City Council Meeting of 04/14/2026 were appreciated. Thank you for acting in that manner.
I’ve recently been trying to convey to you through City Staff, and at public meetings, that in relation to the City’s management of State Public Trust Tidelands, and the associated State level review/monitoring of same right now, possible solutions may exist, which have not yet been fully recognized, advanced, or contemplated at the City level.
Given the many very important aspects of these matters, and the broad ranging implications, I would ask that we find time to meet, so that these solutions can, at the very least, be made more completely detailed for each of you. Most of what I tend to lay out, is supported by the record, and were you feel that you could rely on facts I state, I expect that progress could be made in perhaps 30 minutes to an hour. On the other hand, if you’d prefer that I prove with documentation/video/audio, etc., that you can rely on what I say, more time, and/or a series of interactions would be required. I am open to either scenario, and simply seek to inform. I hope that you will agree, that informed decisions make for better decisions.
With two or three days of advance notice, I should be able to accommodate the when and where of your schedules.
Thank you, take care,
Adam