Newport Beach planning commission approves 30‑unit Westcliff at Dover townhomes with conditions after ENC objections

The Newport Beach City Planning Commission on June 18 approved the Westcliff at Dover residential project, a proposal to demolish a vacant medical office and build 30 for‑sale townhomes at 1501 East 16th Street, adopting conditions intended to reduce visual and privacy impacts on the neighboring Environmental Nature Center (ENC).

Staff planner Oscar Orosco described the project as five detached three‑story buildings (buildings 100–500) with two‑car garages for each unit, nine guest spaces and units ranging from three bedrooms and two to three bathrooms. Orosco said the site is in the city’s HO3 housing opportunity overlay and that the project meets the overlay’s minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. He noted the applicant requested five deviations from the city’s multi‑unit objective design standards and that staff had found the project eligible for the AB 130 environmental pathway, subject to required tribal consultation and conditions of approval.

Why it mattered: the site directly abuts the Environmental Nature Center, which runs a nationally recognized nature preschool and programs serving thousands of children yearly. ENC leaders and many residents argued the massing, rooftop features and close setbacks would harm the center’s educational mission, privacy for preschoolers and native habitat. Bo Glover, ENC president and CEO, told commissioners, “It is not hyperbole to say that the ENC is the premier nature center model” and urged a redesigned plan with lower heights and larger setbacks.

What the developer said: Daniel Boyd, vice president of entitlements for D.R. Horton, said his team had worked with ENC and made multiple concessions, including relocating rooftop decks away from the ENC, removing some recessed balconies and building a more aggressive landscape buffer. "We have developed a landscape plan ... plant species and trees that have a potential of 20 ft at the time of planting with a projected growth up to 30 feet over a period of time," he said. The design team supplied line‑of‑sight exhibits and argued taller initial plantings and a graded planting program would screen most views within about 10 years.

Legal and technical disputes: ENC counsel and several technical speakers challenged staff’s environmental analysis and AB 130 reliance, saying the record lacked a required Phase I site assessment and other steps tied to AB 130 compliance. ENC attorney Doug Hedenamp told the commission that the exemption pathway “requires a Phase I environmental report” and raised concerns about the sufficiency of the record and tribal consultation details.

Commission deliberations and conditions: Commissioners debated competing priorities — local compatibility versus state housing law and the risk of so‑called "builder's remedy" if the city were found out of compliance with state housing mandates. Commissioners ultimately negotiated a set of conditions with the applicant intended to reduce the project’s impacts on the ENC. Key commitments and conditions adopted by the commission included:

- Revised landscape buffering along the ENC boundary requiring larger initial plantings and a revised plan for staff approval (applicant agreed to increase specified box sizes and plantings where appropriate to achieve quicker screening).

- Fence/wall treatments to better blend with ENC materials and colors; the commission directed staff to work with the applicant to identify materials that mimic the ENC’s aesthetic and allowed a higher wall on the ENC flank to improve privacy (the preschool‑side setback remains constrained by code limits).

- A requirement that the applicant work with staff to redesign or remove the rooftop "doghouse" structures that create vertical massing facing ENC; the developer agreed to explore alternatives and return plans to staff for final approval.

- Conditional removal of a rear power pole if Southern California Edison confirms that the pole is not required to serve other properties; if removal would require work on adjacent properties or is infeasible, the pole may remain.

The commission also required that glazing/modeling deviations be adjusted consistent with the city’s objective standards and that the project conform to other conditions in the staff report.

Vote and next steps: The motion to approve the project with the negotiated conditions carried 4‑2, with Commissioners Langford and Gazano voting no. The approval is a recommendation/advice role of the commission per the city’s process (the action and any subsequent permits will be subject to conditions in the adopted resolution and final ministerial steps). Staff will finalize conditions of approval and the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the specified landscape, wall material and utility verification steps before building permit issuance.

What remains unresolved: ENC and several technical commenters said the city’s record should include additional environmental and cultural‑resource steps and that some mitigation (larger setbacks, lower heights or elimination of rooftop decks) would better protect the preschool and habitat. The applicant has committed to work with staff to develop final materials and landscape details; if those measures or additional studies are not completed as required, they could affect later permits or trigger remedies under state law.

The planning commission moved on to administrative business after the vote; the project record will include the staff report, the developer’s revised plans and the correspondence and exhibits submitted during the hearing.