Planning commission recommends approval of 30‑unit Westcliff at Dover townhomes over ENC objections

The Newport Beach Planning Commission on June 18 voted 4-2 to recommend approval of the Westcliff at Dover residential development, a 30‑unit, for‑sale townhome project proposed at 1501 East 16th Street, after the applicant agreed to several design and mitigation conditions intended to lessen visual and privacy impacts on the adjacent Environmental Nature Center (ENC) and its preschool.

Staff presented the project as a proposed demolition of a vacant medical office and construction of five detached three‑story buildings with rooftop decks and two‑car garages, totaling 30 units in the HO3 housing opportunity overlay. Planning staff said the project meets minimum overlay density, complies with setbacks and height limits (buildings range about 44 ft 1 in to 44 ft 7 in, below the 65‑ft maximum), proposes two parking spaces per unit plus nine guest spaces, and was analyzed under AB 130’s statutory CEQA pathway. Oscar Orozco of the planning division summarized the application and listed five requested deviations from the city’s objective design standards.

The project team, led by Daniel Boyd of D.R. Horton, said the development would provide three‑bedroom for‑sale units averaging roughly 2,088–2,400 square feet. Boyd told the commission the team had negotiated with ENC and made targeted changes, saying they “totally concur with the staff report” and noting specific concessions to address ENC concerns.

The commission’s public hearing, however, drew sustained opposition from the ENC and hundreds of residents. Bo Glover, ENC president and CEO, told commissioners the center — which runs a nature preschool and educates tens of thousands of children annually — would suffer “visual intrusion and noise impacts” and that the project’s scale and proximity would harm the center’s educational mission. “This project is literally taking away the blue sky,” Glover said during public comment.

Opponents repeatedly urged larger setbacks, two‑story perimeter buildings, elimination or redesign of rooftop decks, and more substantial landscape buffers. Several speakers cited the 10½‑foot setback along the ENC property line, and argued that the proposed 4‑ft sidewalk and wall footings would leave too little room for the deep‑rooted plantings needed to screen the buildings. An arborist and multiple long‑time ENC staff and board members said the renderings showing screening at 10 years were optimistic.

Applicant representatives acknowledged those concerns and offered compromises on several items. The team agreed to work with staff to redesign or remove certain rooftop “doghouse” structures that create vertical massing on the roofline, to refine the landscape plan using larger boxed trees and altered spacing along the ENC boundary where appropriate, and to consider fence and wall materials that better match the ENC campus. The applicant also agreed to remove a rear power pole if Southern California Edison confirmed that pole did not serve other properties; if SCE requires it to remain, the pole would stay.

Staff and the applicant also stressed procedural and legal constraints. Staff Deputy Director Liz Westmoreland told the commission that, under state housing laws and the city’s housing overlay, the city must apply objective standards and that some findings are constrained by the Housing Accountability Act and AB 130’s narrowly drawn CEQA provisions. Westmoreland said the city had conducted the required tribal consultations under AB 130 and included conditions for tribal monitoring.

After extended deliberations, commissioners added conditions intended to strengthen mitigation: revising the landscape plan along the ENC boundary to provide immediate buffering using larger boxed trees where appropriate; directing staff to work with the applicant on fence/wall materials and alignment to better match ENC campus character (with director review); requiring the applicant to withdraw the glazing waiver so the building meets the overlay glazing requirements; directing further study and revision or removal of rooftop elements most visible from ENC; and requiring removal of the rear pole if SCE permits. Chair Harris moved to recommend approval with those conditions.

The commission approved the recommendation 4‑2, with Commissioners Langford and Gazano voting no. The staff recommendation the commission adopted was to find the project exempt under AB 130 and to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the project as amended. The commission’s action recommends the project move forward under the conditions it imposed.

What’s next: Staff’s resolution as amended was recommended by the Planning Commission; the project will proceed through the city’s review process per staff direction and the project files for subsequent entitlement steps. The commission’s vote does not itself build the project; it forwards the matter with its recommendation and adopted conditions.

Key facts about the proposal: 30 for‑sale townhomes in five buildings; building heights about 44 ft; nine guest parking spaces; two parking spaces per unit in garages; traffic study estimated 134 average daily trips (below the city threshold that would require additional study); staff reported approximately 110 opposition letters and about 44 letters of support included in the record.

The record of the hearing includes extensive public comment from ENC leadership, local residents, environmental and wildlife advocates, and supporters of new housing in the city. Commissioners said they weighed community impacts against the statutory obligations in state housing law before reaching the 4‑2 recommendation.