Citizens protest development

A proposed project near Begonia Park in Corona del Mar has some residents taking a stand against the plans, which would block some of the view of the bay from the park.

The Newport Beach Planning Commission recently gave its seal of approval to the project, which was originally proposed in April. Initially, the Planning Commission denied the project because it did not conform to building code standards. The project was redesigned and reduced in size before the Planning Commission gave its approval recently, though the City Council still has to sign off on the project before construction can start.

“We have done everything we can to satisfy the concerns of the community,” the project’s architect, David Olson, said. “In the big picture, a lot of people always thought [the property] was part of the park, and they are a little bit surprised something is going to be built on it.”

But many residents aren’t at all happy. While the view barrier was reduced looking out from the park to the bay and surrounding area, there is still some obstruction. To the residents, that is a violation of the city’s General Plan that protects public views. In response, they have hired an attorney to combat the project. The group, Friends of Begonia Park, has also raised funds — said to be in the thousands — and started www.friendsofbegoniapark.com, and held a meeting at Begonia Park on Friday for those supporting their protest.

“If you look at it, it would be a shame to lose this valuable asset to the city,” said Dan Spletter, a resident who lives a few houses away from the property. “When you go there, you are just like, ‘Oh my god, this would be terrible.’ ”

The redesign complies with all zoning standards, with minor exceptions for some planters and a water feature, according to city officials.

The new design conformed to height limits, made two of the three levels below street level and reduced the overall size, city officials said.

“We found that the revised design did everything the commission asked them to do,” Planning Manager Patrick Alford said.

But residents were upset and wanted to appeal, so Councilwoman Nancy Gardner granted their request.

The subject will now be discussed at the City Council meeting Sept. 23.

“When I looked at the plans myself, I thought, ‘Good, they have done a great job on the second time around,’ ” Gardner said.

But Gardner acknowledges that the issue isn’t simple. While the General Plan does protect public views, a property owner has rights to build. And the question of the view is far from black and white.

“We have had the property for 10 years. We have been paying on it for 10 years. It has been our dream to build,” the property’s owner, Kim Megonigal, said. “We don’t believe it impacts the park. And really, there is no view there that is being blocked.”

Whether the view is obstructed depends on where one is standing at the park and the perspective taken, Alford said.

Whether the General Plan protects an entire view, or whether a good portion preserved qualifies as protected, are questions to be answered by the City Council, Gardner said.

“That sort of thing is very much a matter of judgment,” she said.

Spletter goes to the park at least once a day when he walks or takes a bike ride. For him, the matter of protecting the view is simple.

“[The project] can be built if it doesn’t obstruct the view from the park,” he said. “We have heard what the city has to say, but we are not necessarily accepting it.”

Spletter said the city won’t want a lawsuit, which is what his group intends to do if it doesn’t get its way. The group hopes to have the view designated as a view corridor and have it protected.

“There are very specific protections of public view, and it is our opinion that it is designated as a public viewpoint, and under the circumstances, I think the city has some difficulty in arguing any part of that view can be taken,” said Tim Howett, the attorney representing Friends of Begonia Park.

If the project was stopped and the property owner was told he or she couldn’t build on the spot, Olson claimed that would be against the law and action could be taken on the owner’s end as well.

“We have designed a project that complies with the zoning code and complies with the General Plan, and to tell the client you couldn’t build on it is to tell the property owner your property is worthless,” Olson said. “They [would be] eliminating any economic feasibility.”

Olson added that his client signed an agreement that would not permit any additional development on top of the design submitted to the council.

DANIEL TEDFORD may be reached at (714) 966-4632 or at [email protected].