HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Minutes - AmendedCity of Newport Beach May 13, 2025
April 29, 2025 Agenda Item No
Chad r-Tillner stated that the use of amplified music over recent years has increased which
could be bothersome to neighbors. However, he indicated he remains neutral about the project but
hoped that Council would take the nearby neighbors' concerns about noise into consideration.
Following Mayor Stapleton's inquiry, no Councilmember amended their ex parte communication
information.
Mr. Catanzarite asked Council to not ignore Five Crowns' sound impacts on the residents and
indicated that his sound consultant believes that, no matter what is done by the restaurant, it will
not mitigate the sound.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Stapleton closed the public hearing.
In response to Councilmember Grant's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Murillo
stated that the most up-to-date sound study from the applicant is included with the staff report but
the appellant also conducted a sound study. Further, the only location in the City with onsite sound
monitoring is at Newport Dunes. O
In response to the appellant's previous question, City Attorney Harp clarified the intention of the
section related to the application process.
In response to Councilmember Weigand's questielhs, Deputy Community Development Director
Murillo and Assistant Planner Whelan discussed what initiatedFthe project, explained the purpose
of proposing the limited term permit for this matter, and reviewed the restaurant's complaint
history over two years. 1k .1
Councilmember Blom expressed support for maintaining the Five Crowns legacy, emphasizing its
historical significance and community role, and highlighted key community -centered imperatives
surpassing specific resentments linked to residential concerns regarding amplified noise.
In response to Councilmember Barto's question, Assistant Planner Whelan indicated that the police
department noted that the complaints against Five Crowns were not out of the ordinary compared
to other restaurants. %r
Following discussion, Councilmemeer Weigand suggested that Conditions of Approval 6, 8, 9, 10,
11, 16, 19 and 20 be either removed or amended, emphasizing that the operating hours should be
amended and the sound attenuation wall requirement should be removed. City Attorney Harp
pointed out that the appellant would normally be given the opportunity at this time to comment on
the proposed amendments; however, he noted that Mr. Catanzarite was no longer in the Council
Chambers.
Motion by Councilmember Weigand, seconded by Councilmember Blom, to a) find this
project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301
under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment;
and b) adopt amended Resolution No. 2025-18, AResolution of the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach, California, Denying an Appeal and Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission's
and Zoning Administrator to Approve a Limited Term Permit for a Temporary Outdoor Dining Area
with Live Entertainment Located at 3801 East Coast Highway (PA2023-0202), including the removal
or amendments to Conditions of Approval 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 19 and 20.
Mayor Pro Tem Kleiman concurred with Councilmember Weigand's recommended amendments,
notably agreeing to eliminate the requirement for the sound mitigation wall after reviewing the
extensive attempts made by Five Crowns to address noise concerns.
With Councilmember Weber recusing herself, the motion carried 6-0.
Volume 66 - Page 309
City of Newport Beach
April 29, 2025
23. Ordinance Nos. 2025-7 and 2025-8, and Resolution No. 2025-19: Approving an Amendment
to the North Newport Center Planned Community (PC-56)
Assistant City Manager Jurjis explained the background regarding the amendment and Principal
Planner Westmoreland utilized a presentation to provide a staff report, reported that the
amendment would allocate 1,500 dwelling units from the Housing Opportunity Overlay to the
planned community, allow for increased building heights, make other changes to development
standards, and highlighted the recommendations.
Councilmember Weigand requested and received confirmation from Principal Planner
Westmoreland that the residential community in Block 100 would not impact the view ordinance
already established in the area.
Mayor Stapleton opened the public hearing.
Shawna Schaffner, representing The Irvine Company, stated that they agree with the
recommendations.
Adam Leverenz raised concerns about the lack of affordable housing in the City given the trend for
luxury development. He believed the City has a history of removing affordable units without
replacing them and warned about the negative consequenceAmf failing to provide affordable housing.
e
Jim Mosher noted that The Irvine Company's 1,500-unit proposal was relies on units added to the
General Plan without a Greenlight vote (Charter Section 423). He also questioned the justification
for building all the units in one location, as it may significantly affect the views of the surrounding
areas, including a publicly funded view platform.
Todd Larner expressed support for The Irvi�e Company's proposal since it is a step toward resolving
housing supply issues, aligns with smart planning principles that would ensure that the City
remains an employment destination, and creates quality housing without significantly impacting
local traffic.
AP
Georgina Jacobson expressed support for The Irvine Company's proposal since it addresses the
housing mandate w 'le maintaining the City's quality of life.
Hearing no furth stimony, Mayor Stapleton closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Blo anked The Irvine Company for being a part of the community and making
an investment in th y, and commended Principal Planner Westmoreland for her presentation.
Councilmember Grant reviewed the City's efforts and milestones for achieving affordable housing,
and assured everyone that the City is working tirelessly on the matter.
Motion by Councilmember Blom, seconded by Councilmember Grant, to a) find this matter
is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the California Public
Resources Code (PRC) and Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines because it is consistent with the previously certified Program Environmental Impact
Report (SCH No. 2023060699); b) waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only,
introduce Ordinance No. 2025-7, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Approving an Amendment to the North Newport Center Planned Community
Development Plan (PC-56) to Allocate 1,500 Base Dwelling Units from the HO-4 (Newport Center
Area) Subarea Development Limits Set Forth in Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO)
Overlay Zoning Districts) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to the North Newport Center
Planned Community (PC-56) Development Plan for 100 and 190 Newport Center Drive and Various
Addresses Within the North Newport Center Planned Community (PA2024-0173), and pass to a
second reading on June 10, 2025; c) waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only,
Volume 66 - Page 310