Attachment C
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, September 17, 2026 (Excerpt)
Planning Commission Meeting
September 17, 2026
5 ABSENT: Harris
VIII. CURRENT BUSINESS
ITEM NO. 4 SURRENDER OF LIMITED TERM PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR FIVE CROWNS TEMPORARY PATIO (PA2023-0202)
Site Location: 3801 East Coast Highway
Summary:
On April 29, 2025, the City Council denied an appeal and approved a limited term permit and coastal development permit to allow a temporary outdoor dining patio with live entertainment at Five Crowns Restaurant. However, on December 2, 2025, the Applicant voluntarily surrendered their entitlement. This purpose of this item is to confirm that the rights afforded by the prior approval are void and have not been in force and effect since it was voluntarily surrendered on December 2, 2025, and cannot be invoked in connection with any further discretionary approvals or entitled.
Recommended Actions:
1. Find this action is not is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Additionally, this action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15321 under Class 21 (Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 which exempts actions by regulatory agencies to revoke or terminate a permit or land use entitlements.
2. Adopt Resolution No. PC2026-027 confirming that PA2023-0202 is of no further force and effect and has not been in effect since December 2, 2025. The Resolution shall further confirm that, as a result of the Applicant’s voluntary surrender of PA2023-0202, Resolution No. 2025-18 presents no live controversy and shall not be relied upon or invoked in connection with any future discretionary approvals, or entitlements requested by the Applicant.
Deputy City Attorney Jose Montoya stated that the purpose of the action was solely to confirm that the rights afforded under PA2023-0202 are void and have not been in force and effect since the applicant voluntarily surrendered the permit on December 2, 2025, and that the permit cannot be invoked in connection with any future discretionary approvals or entitlements.
Resident owner at 352 and 354 Hazel, Ken Catanzarite, argued that the resolution's recitation of the permit history was factually inaccurate and that the original use permit (UP 1822) had limited the patio to 348 square feet, four tables, and 26 patrons—not the larger area the temporary permit attempted to authorize.
Resident Jim Mosher noted the complex procedural history across multiple resolutions (Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, and City Council) and questioned whether the Planning Commission has authority to make pronouncements about the City Council's Resolution No. 2025- 18, suggesting the resolution should reference the Commission's own prior resolution instead.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 17, 2026
6 Resident Lisa Sutton observed that the outcomes of the Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study (Item No. 5) could affect the subject outdoor space going forward.
Deputy City Attorney Montoya offered no additional comments.
Motion made by Commissioner Curtis Ellmore and seconded by Secretary Greg Reed to adopt Resolution No. PC2026-027 confirming that PA2023-0202 is of no further force and effect and has not been in effect since December 2, 2025
AYES: Ellmore, Gazzano, Langford, Reed, Rosene and Salene NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Harris
IX. STUDY SESSION
ITEM NO. 5 CORONA DEL MAR COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR STUDY (PA2024-0002) Site Location: Citywide
Summary:
The purpose of this study session is to introduce the Planning Commission to the CdM Study and the proposed amendments to the City of Newport Beach (City) General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Municipal Code that serve to implement its recommendations. No action will be taken at this study session. The proposed amendments would return to the Planning Commission for a noticed public hearing, at which time it will receive public comment and provide a recommendation to the City Council, as the final decisionmaker.
Senior Planner Joselyn Perez presented the Corona del Mar (CdM) Commercial Corridor Land Use and Mobility Study, which was initiated by City Council direction in response to community concerns about outdated zoning, barriers to private reinvestment, and parking challenges. The study involved extensive outreach to the business community, CdM Residents Association, and the broader public. No formal action was taken at this study session; all proposed code amendments will return for a noticed public hearing.
Programs and Public Improvements to Date: Dynamic parking availability signage has been installed at the beach parking lot; additional signage is planned within the Coast Highway median.
An enhanced pedestrian crossing at Orchid and Coast Highway is scheduled for construction later in 2026. The Newport Beach trolley is planned to extend to CdM in spring 2027. Bike infrastructure, crosswalk bulb-outs, sidewalk improvements, and pedestrian wayfinding signage remain in design.
Proposed Code Amendments (Five Recommendations):
● Revised Land Use and Permitting Requirements: Staff proposed creating a CdM-specific overlay district to streamline permitting for food and beverage and veterinary services, introduce a new "wine bar" land use under a Minor Use Permit, and create a director-level Minor Use Permit (MUP) process—subject to objective standards (e.g., no late hours, outdoor patios closing by 9 PM, live entertainment confined to interior)—to allow faster approvals without a full public hearing. Auto-centric uses (vehicle washing, drive-throughs) and animal boarding/kennels would be prohibited for new entrants but treated as nonconforming for existing businesses, which could relocate within the corridor or intensify