Newport Beach planning commission recommends surf park despite tribal, environmental and airport concerns

The Newport Beach Planning Commission voted unanimously Sept. 4 to recommend City Council certify the environmental impact report and approve entitlements for the proposed Snug Harbor Surf Park at 3100 Irvine Avenue, moving the project a major step closer to final decisions at the council level.

Planner Jocelyn Perez told commissioners the proposal would convert the central portion of the privately owned Newport Beach Golf Course into a surf facility featuring two 5-million-gallon lagoons, a roughly 50,000-square-foot, three-story clubhouse, a two-story athlete accommodations building of about 9,400 square feet with 20 rooms, ancillary structures, and 351 parking spaces with solar canopies. Perez said the project requires a general plan amendment to increase the development intensity for Anomaly 58 (about a 39,772-square-foot increase), a major site development review, a conditional use permit for outdoor commercial recreation and alcohol sales, a modification permit for retaining walls higher than eight feet, and certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) with an associated mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Why it mattered: supporters said the surf park would expand year-round surf access and lifeguard training opportunities, create economic and youth-sport benefits, and use solar canopies to offset a portion of the project's energy needs. Opponents raised worries about loss of affordable public golf, heavy excavation and the likelihood of encountering tribal cultural resources, potential runoff into the Santa Ana Delhy (Del‑High) channel and Upper Newport Bay, overnight accommodations near homes, and a finding of inconsistency from the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).

What staff presented: Perez summarized the EIR process (a 45‑day public review, 126 initial comment letters plus additional submissions) and said the draft EIR identified areas requiring mitigation in biological, cultural, paleontological and tribal resources and that mitigation measures in the final EIR reduce those impacts to less‑than‑significant levels. Perez also reported technical findings on trips and parking: the project’s trip generation was estimated at 1,996 daily trips (a net increase of 186 over existing golf uses) and peak on‑site attendance was modeled at 388 visitors at a given peak, under the city’s 300‑trip threshold that triggers a different phasing analysis. The staff report includes a water‑use analysis (applicant estimate ~28 million gallons per year, with about 15 million returned to the Orange County Water District groundwater replenishment system) and a water quality management plan that divides runoff into 13 drainage management areas with on‑site treatment before discharge to the storm system, the staff presentation said.

Applicant’s case: Shauna Shaner, chief executive officer of CAA Planning representing the applicant, described operational controls (reservation system, lifeguard control tower, eight lifeguards on average), a surf academy and community programs, and asserted WaveGuard equipment is quieter than some other technologies. Shaner said solar canopies would provide nearly half of the wave‑making energy needs, and that the applicant has planned for continued golf operations on remaining holes and provided golf parking and cart storage in the clubhouse. She said the long‑term ground lease for the parcel terminates in January 2027.

Community reaction and technical challenges: the public comment period drew speakers on both sides. Opponents included civic groups and long‑time residents who said the EIR understates risks to tribal cultural resources and asked for recirculation if errors are found; conservation groups urged stronger runoff and habitat protections; and former golf advocates pressed for guaranteed long‑term arrangements to preserve golf or a restoration bond if the surf park does not remain feasible. Supporters included high‑school surf and golf coaches, lifeguard trainers and residents who said consistent waves would improve youth training and public safety. The city attorney and staff described an extended tribal consultation process and noted two tribes requested consultation and monitoring; some tribal representatives and their advocates said AB 52 consultation and mitigation wording in the EIR required additional enforceable measures.

Airport compatibility and permits: the project was referred to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), which found the proposal inconsistent on Aug. 7. Staff noted the Planning Commission may recommend that council consider issuing a notice of intent to override the ALUC inconsistency; staff and the applicant also said FAA 7460 filings were submitted and returned with 'no hazard' determinations for the proposed structures and solar canopies. The applicant pointed to a technical airport compatibility study in the EIR and said the site plan deliberately locates more intense uses in less restrictive safety zones.

Commission action: after extended questioning of staff and the applicant and hearing approximately four dozen public speakers, Commissioner Rosine moved to recommend approval to City Council (including suggested editorial clarifications to the draft resolution); the motion was seconded and the commission voted unanimously to forward the recommendation. The formal action recorded was a resolution recommending that City Council certify the final EIR and approve the general plan amendment, major site development review, conditional use permit and modification permit associated with PA2024‑000069.

What comes next: the recommendation advances the matter to City Council, which is expected to consider issuing a notice of intent to override the ALUC finding and to act on certification and entitlements in a forthcoming council hearing. The city staff and applicant indicated additional technical clarifications and editorial corrections will be incorporated into the final resolution and that the EIR appendices, response to comments and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program remain part of the record.

Quotes: "The project requires a general plan amendment to increase the development intensity of Anomaly 58," Planner Jocelyn Perez said during the staff presentation. "We will continue to facilitate golf," applicant representative Shauna Shaner said, noting parking and cart storage provisions for continuing golf operations. "This EIR has spread some misinformation that is significant," public commenter Cara Grant said, urging recirculation if errors are corrected.

Ending: The Planning Commission’s recommendation does not authorize construction; it forwards a record and recommendation to City Council, which will make the final entitlements decisions and consider whether to issue a notice of intent to override the ALUC inconsistency.