A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Newport Beach council rescinds general plan amendment after referendum petition qualifies

January 27, 2026 | Newport Beach City, Orange County, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Newport Beach council rescinds general plan amendment after referendum petition qualifies
Newport Beach — The City Council on Jan. 27 accepted certification that a referendum petition challenging a general plan amendment for the Snug Harbor Surf Park project contained the required number of valid signatures and then voted to rescind the amendment rather than send the question to voters.

Clerk briefed the council that the Orange County Registrar of Voters confirmed the petition met the signature threshold after volunteers collected more than the required signatures. The general plan amendment had increased the allowable development limit for the privately owned property formerly used as a public golf course (an increase from 20,000 square feet to 59,772 square feet in the cited land-use table).

Speakers for and against the project urged different outcomes. Benny Halleck, volunteer chairman of the Save Newport Beach Golf Course effort, told the council volunteers collected more than 9,600 signatures in 21 days and urged rescission: "In just 21 days, volunteers collected over 9,600 signatures to referendum your wave pool approval," he said, urging the council to preserve the golf course.

Council members discussed options available under state law: repeal the amendment (no election cost) or place the referendum on a general or special election ballot (staff estimated costs of about $8,500–$17,000 if consolidated with the Nov. 2 municipal election, or $113,000–$143,000 for a stand-alone special election in June). Council member Weigand moved to accept certification and rescind the amendment; Council member Weimer seconded. The motion carried 6 yes, with Council member Blom abstaining.

City staff clarified that rescinding the general plan amendment would remove the increase in allowed square footage for the site but does not by itself prohibit the applicant from pursuing other recreational uses consistent with the general plan's recreational zoning; the rescission specifically addresses the adopted square-footage amendment.

Next steps: The rescission closes the immediate path created by the amendment. If the project proponent wishes to pursue a modified proposal, it would need to return through the appropriate planning and public-review process.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee