city council district   v corona del mar & newport coast

Nancy Gardner 

councilwoman  v  newport beach, california






While most people seem to feel the City will benefit from the development agreement which will pay for a new city hall, a good portion of the new Oasis Senior Center, and traffic improvements, there are some who raised objections which seemed to focus on three areas:

   LACK OF AN EIR: An EIR wasnít required because we had just done an extensive EIR for the General Plan, and there had been no significant changes in the interim period.

   LACK OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: A joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commission on October 30, a second meeting of the Planning Commission on November 15, two additional council meetings on December 6 and December 18 Ė thatís a month and a half and four meetings for people to get involved. Also, most of what was in the Development Agreement was in the General Plan which had five years of discussion.

   LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN NEGOTIATIONS: Itís true that two members of the Council went out and negotiated with The Irvine Company and came back with the general terms, but these were then discussed in public meetings. Because of the Brown act, the alternative is to have all seven of us negotiating from the dais, and I canít believe anyone would want that.

As predicted, the Council passed a group homes ordinance to address an overconcentration of such entities in the city. The goal has been to craft an ordinance which would alleviate the impacts of this concentration but was not discriminatory.


The ordinance hadnít even been printed when the Concerned Citizens group filed its lawsuit, naming the City as one of the defendants. It would have been nice if they had given the ordinance a modicum of time to judge its effectiveness, but those are the vagaries of litigation.


This is one of the priorities for the Council this year. As you will recall, the General Plan has two options for the area with Plan A being to purchase the entire area for open space. If we canít find the funds, Plan B is for at least half the property to remain open space with the other half for development with a maximum of 1,350 residential units, 75,000 square feet of commercial space, and a boutique hotel of 75 rooms. The publicís position during the General Plan process was interesting. When we presented Plan A ĖĖ finding funding and keeping it all open space Ė most people thought it was a terrific idea, but when we talked about Plan B Ė the city getting only half the open space but getting it for free and having the developer clean up the area, a great many of them jumped on that. Once we get an appraisal and have a better idea of the dollars weíre talking about, it will be interesting to see how residents evaluate the two options.


For those who have lamented the passing of yet another landmark, take heart. The latest news is that a decision has been made to keep the Port as a theater. Plans have been submitted that indicate a significant reduction in overall seating with rows of couches, chairs and tables in the lower level, chairs and tables in the mezzanine and a remodeled lobby.





     > CdM Parking

     > Palm Trees
     > Other Concerns




This is a two-way process, so please donít hesitate to contact me with your ideas and opinions.




Councilwoman Nancy Gardner



City of Newport Beach - 3300 Newport Blvd - Newport Beach, CA  92663

Phone:  949.644.3004    -    EMAIL:

Copyright  2008   v  Nancy Gardner    v   All Rights Reserved

=>  Return to Newsletters