The Newport Beach Planning Commission denied a proposal to convert an existing 27,931‑square‑foot office building at 20280 and 20312 Acacia Street into 12 medical office condominiums (project PA2024‑0236) at its Nov. 20, 2025 meeting, citing an insufficient parking mitigation plan and concern about setting a precedent for other nearby conversions.

Staff presentation and project basics: Oscar Orozco of the Planning Division summarized the request, which would convert the existing two‑story office into 12 condominium units for medical offices. The site currently provides 109 parking spaces; a full medical conversion would require 140 spaces, creating a shortfall of 32 spaces (about 22.9%). The applicant sought a waiver of those 32 spaces and provided a parking demand study prepared by Michael Baker International and a traffic analysis by Gandini Group. Staff said the project triggers the city’s traffic phasing ordinance (the application would add roughly 703 average daily trips) and recommended the commission find the project CEQA‑exempt and adopt a resolution with a limited revision to Finding D related to water‑meter separation because the site is within the Irvine Ranch Water District.

Applicant and comparables: Peiqing Lee, founder and CEO of CGM Development Company, described planned renovations (new roof, individual AC and electrical subpanels, lobby and landscaping) and said 9 of the 12 units are already under contract with local physicians. City Traffic Engineer Kevin Riley told commissioners the applicant’s two chosen comparables were Spectrum Medical Plaza in Irvine and a medical plaza in Aliso Viejo; Riley said staff accepted those comparables as similar urban medical uses rather than sites inside Newport Beach.

Mitigation offered and conditions: Staff and the applicant discussed several mitigation options during the hearing, including valet parking, bicycle amenities and shower facilities, and phased conversions or limits on the percentage of medical uses allowed by right. Staff noted condition language that would prohibit urgent‑care uses at the site so the parking study assumptions (which did not include urgent care) remained valid. Staff also identified a condition requiring dedication of a 5‑foot strip of land along Acacia Street for street/highway purposes.

Commission concern and vote: Multiple commissioners emphasized precedent and neighborhood impacts, saying approval of the full conversion with the requested waiver would likely prompt similar requests in the small neighborhood and could materially increase on‑street demand. Commissioner Elmore moved to deny the application; Commissioner Reid seconded. The chair announced the motion to deny carried unanimously as recorded (6‑0).

What was not decided and next steps: The commission did not preclude a future application. Staff had outlined alternatives (phased allowances, mandated valet operations, smaller medical‑use percentages or returning with additional mitigation studies), and several commissioners explicitly said they would be open to a resubmitted proposal that addressed parking through a clear, verifiable mitigation plan. The applicant indicated willingness to pursue HOA/management and other measures and may revise the proposal and return to the commission.

Project identification note: The agenda listed the item as “Acacia Atria Medical Office Condominiums” (PA2024‑0236); in the presentation staff at one point used the variant “Acacia Atrium.” The commission used the application number and site addresses in its discussion and vote.

Vote and procedural notes: Motion to deny made by Commissioner Elmore and seconded by Commissioner Reid; chair announced a unanimous vote (6‑0). The record as published did not list each commissioner’s individual roll‑call vote in the transcript; the tally announced was 6‑0 in favor of denial.

Officials, consultants and parties who spoke: Oscar Orozco (Planning Division staff), Kevin Riley (city traffic engineer), Peiqing Lee (applicant, CEO, CGM Development Company), Jason Crotz (public commenter, representing Rita Newport Irvine LLC), and various commissioners who expressed concerns about parking, consistency, and precedent.

The commission’s discussion closed the agenda item with direction that the applicant may revise and return with a stronger parking‑mitigation strategy or phased approach.