Letters to the Editor: Newport Beach must protect against tendency to over-develop

On Dec. 7, the Newport Beach Planning Commission heard the community’s concerns about the height and bulk of a new home at 2607 Ocean Blvd. (“Blufftop Corona del Mar house gets go-ahead, with more changes”). The owner of the irregularly shaped property had asked to build a 5,200 square-foot house in an area where a similarly sized standard shape property would have been able to build a 4,450-square-foot home. While I applaud the commission’s decision to allow only a 4,500-square-foot home, I also question why the application for the larger home was even considered by the planning department.

City zoning codes allows odd-shaped lots with unusual building constraints to receive special consideration for development exceptions, which was the case here. The shape of the lot would have forced the owner to build a much smaller home than other similarly sized lots, and it was appropriate to grant the owner a variance for a larger home.

However, the developer had asked for a much larger home than other standard-shaped lots, and our planning staff had recommended approval of this request. But for the community outcry, this request would have likely been granted, creating a precedent for larger homes in the future.

While Newport Beach has excellent staff in its planning division, the parameters it uses to recommend development don’t reflect the reality that the majority of residents don’t want excess development, nor exceptions to development rules. There is a growing unease that our community is being overrun with big box houses and buildings, and no one could miss the message that was sent by the Museum House referendum in 2016 as well as the decisive defeat of Measure Y in 2014.

And yet we still find ourselves having to mobilize to publicize and prevent these projects. In many cities, planning staff would simply inform an applicant that their request would not likely be approved, and it would have ended there. This culture of permissive development emanates from the City Council and permeates the city’s actions.

The next major project in the pipeline is the Koll Residences project, a high-rise, high-density condo tower that is larger by far than the Museum House project we rejected last year. For the four senior members of the City Council (each of whom initially voted to approve the Museum House as well as add 3,700 pages to the Museum House petition), the Koll Residences will offer an excellent opportunity to show the residents that they have gotten the message that high-rise, high-density development is unacceptable.

The City Council will have a choice: stand with developers or stand with the residents, but it cannot do both. The city will be watching to see which choice it makes.

Susan Skinner

Newport Beach

Letter is dismissive of community sentiment

Re. “Effort to recall Councilman Scott Peotter is a solution in search of a problem”: Newport Beach Councilman Scott Peotter must be getting desperate because he apparently rolled out Team Newport ally Bob McCaffrey to once again launch personal attacks on the recall leaders and, by extension, the 10,688 residents who signed the petitions to remove Peotter.

McCaffery claims Peotter “does what he promises.” But does he? Dock fees were not eliminated; they were reduced by an average of only $18 per year for two-thirds of dock owners.

The current fire ring plan is essentially what the prior council proposed, except it is implemented in a way that may cause negative health impacts for Newport Beach residents.

The so-called civic center audit was a $300,000 boondoggle that still has never been completed in final form and resulted in no findings of wrongdoing by anyone.

Peotter and Team Newport have temporally stopped the West Newport Community Center.

We are tired of the special interest, pro-high rise antics of Peotter and the self-proclaimed “kingmakers” like McCaffery who stand behind them.

Lynn Swain

Committee to Recall Scott Peotter

Newport Beach

How to get published: Email us at dailypilot@latimes.com. All correspondence must include full name, hometown and phone number (for verification purposes). The Pilot reserves the right to edit all submissions for clarity and length.