Lawsuit aims to preserve Newport Beach Golf Course from surf park project
- Share via
A lawsuit filed against Newport Beach and the City Council hopes to slam the door shut on a controversial plan to turn golf course land into a surf park.
Attorneys representing Steve Vickers, a Newport Beach resident named in a petition against it, are concerned that city officials could allow a smaller surf park to be built on the grounds of Newport Beach Golf Course, despite a recent ballot measure effort.
“Over 6,100 residents stood up for this golf course,” the suit read. “The council said it heard them. This court is asked to make that answer stick.”
Commissioners approved amendments to the city’s plan but with a 100-foot buffer zone between any future housing development and a nearby flood channel. Environmentalists and golf course supporters opposed the move.
The Snug Harbor Surf Park project suffered a critical setback in January when the Newport Beach City Council rescinded its prior approval of changes that would have allowed for the project to triple in size on the golf course’s central grounds.
Council members voted to adopt the ballot petition on the question instead of scheduling it for a future election.
Back Bay Barrels, the surf park’s developers, did not comment at the time on how the vote would affect its future plans.
Residents that backed the ballot measure claimed an early victory — one they hoped would prevent the golf course from losing three holes, a driving range and restaurant and while sparing the city a costlier election.
But City Manager Seimone Jurjis claimed during the Jan. 27 council meeting that the panel’s rescission of the general plan amendment, as the petition proposed, would not “kill” the surf park project, only shrink its footprint.
“Going after the entirety of the project would have quadrupled the resources we needed,” said Benny Hallock, the volunteer chair of the Save Newport Beach Golf Course group. “We’re doing everything by donation. Going after the square footage halted and slowed a lot of things down. The lawsuit is more about the city even allowing the project to be approved to begin with.”
The complaint argues that Back Bay Barrels has no development rights and any groundbreaking on a smaller-scale surf park without a new general plan amendment, entitlements and environmental review would violate city law.
“Under the unamended general plan, the answer is unambiguous: a 59,772-square-foot surf park is not permitted,” court documents read. “No finding of general plan consistency was ever made for the surf project under the unamended general plan, because no such finding could be made.”
City officials have reviewed the complaint after being served and staked a position that both the petition and the council vote were narrow in focus.
“Reducing the square footage simply adjusts the project’s overall scale and does not alter the approved use’s fundamental nature,” said Georgia Rios, a city spokesperson. “The approvals define the permitted use, site layout and operations. A smaller project within the existing development limits would not create additional impacts beyond those already considered and might even lessen some impacts.”
After Newport Beach residents signed enough petitions for a referendum on the Snug Harbor Surf Park, councilmembers rolled back their prior approval of allowing the project to almost triple in size.
The general plan zones the golf course for parks and recreation. It allows for 20,000 square feet of development for “outdoor commercial recreation.” The lawsuit argues that the limit is supposed to support the “long-term use and viability” of the golf course and that the surf park would undermine that.
Any construction going forward, the complaint claims, would “bleed” the golf course of the revenue needed to sustain itself, especially if the driving range, which is described as its “financial foundation” is redeveloped.
Hallock doesn’t know if Back Bay Barrels intends to build a smaller project within the more limited land. A company spokesperson did not respond to The Pilot’s questions about its future plans.
Either way, the suit seeks an injunction against any potential construction until the dispute is settled in court.
“It’s about what the community wants,” Hallock said. “Everything considered for that property is what the community doesn’t want. The City Council and Planning Commission are out of control.”
