Attachment E
Materials Submitted by Appellant
KENNETH J. CATANZARl1EATTORNEY AT LAW
DIRECT DIAL:
(7 I 4) 678-2 I 00
CATANZARITE LAW CORPORAllON
ATTORNEYS &. COUNSELORS AT LAW
233 I WEST LINCOLN AVENUE
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 9280 I
(7 14) 520-5544
FACSIMILE: (714) 520-0680
September 1, 2026
E-MAIL ADDRESS:
[email protected]
DIRECT FAX:
(7 I 4) 399-0577
Via Email Only:
Lena Shumway, City Clerk Mayor and
Members of the Newport Beach City Council,
c/o City Clerk
[email protected]
Seimone Jurjis, City Manager
s j urj [email protected]
Aaron C. Harp, City Attorney
aharp@newportb�a.chca.gov
Jaime Murillo, Community Development
Director
j murillo@newpmibeachca. �ov
Liz Westmoreland, Deputy Community
Development Director
l [email protected]
Melinda Whelan, Associate Planner
[email protected]
John Murray, Code Enforcement Supervisor
[email protected]
City of Newport Beach Community
Development Department
CDD@newJ2Q._rtbeachca.gov
Re: Five Crowns / P A2025-0208 / UP 1822
SUPPLEMENT AL FORMAL OBJECTION; NOTICE OF
CONTROLLING CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT AUTHORITY;
OBJECTION TO ANY CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION;
DEMAND FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE; OBJECTION TO USE OF
PA2023-0202, CHAPTER 11/SEBRSS PERMITS, OR OTHER
TEMPORARY ACTIVITY TO MANUFACTURE AN "EXISTING OR
FORMER USE"; ADMINISTRATIVE-RECORD AND
EVIDENCE-PRESERVATION NOTICE; AND SUPPLEMENTAL
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST
Dear Mr. Jurjis, Mr. Harp, Mr. Murillo, Ms. Westmoreland, Ms. Whelan, Mr. Murray, and Ms.
Shumway:
This letter supplements and incorporates our prior written objections, administrative submissions, California Public Records Act requests, notices concerning Five Crowns' outdoor operations, and objections to the processing of PA2025-0208. It is intended to provide the City, its decisionmakers, its counsel, and its consultants with formal notice of important intervening controlling authority issued by the California Supreme Court on June 25, 2026, and to require that the City address that authority before taking any CEQA or entitlement action on PA2025-0208.
II
September 1, 2026
Page No. 2
The intervening decision is Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation (2026) 20 Cal.5th 22, 591 P.3d 829 ("Sunflower"). In Sunflower, the California Supreme Court reversed a Court of Appeal decision that had upheld a Class 1 categorical exemption on the theory that any expansion of the facility's use was "negligible" because, on the facts, the environmental risks of the new use were negligible. The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, holding that the Class 1 inquiry turns on the change in the nature and degree of the facility's use-not on a prediction that the resulting environmental harm will be small-and remanded for the exemption to be reconsidered "under the proper analytical framework." The decision materially changes and clarifies the legal framework governing any proposed reliance on the Class 1 "Existing Facilities" categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15301. Its application to Five Crowns is direct and substantial.
The City should not approve, conditionally approve, notice, recommend approval of, or determine P A2025-0208 categorically exempt under Class 1 without first conducting and documenting the analysis Sunflower now expressly requires. Nor should the City permit the applicant to evade that inquiry by describing P A2025-0208 as the mere "retention" of an "existing" patio, by comparing P A2025 against activity conducted under the surrendered PA2023-0202 limited-term permit, by relying on recurring Chapter 11/SEBRSS permits issued after surrender, or by pointing to allegedly "historical" events without identifying their nature, degree, frequency, scope, location, occupancy, hours, entertainment characteristics, and legal authorization.
I. SUNFLOWER IS CONTROLLING AND REQUIRES AN ANALYSIS OF THE
CHANGE IN THE NATURE AND DEGREE OF USE
CEQA Guidelines section 15301 does not categorically exempt a project merely because an existing building or physical facility is involved. The exemption expressly applies only to qualifying activities involving "negligible or no expansion of existing or former use," and the regulation itself states that the "key consideration" is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use.
The Supreme Court resolved the meaning of that requirement in Sunflower. The Court held "that the phrase 'negligible or no expansion of existing or former use' in CEQA's class 1 exemption pertains to an expansion or change in the nature or degree of a structure or facility's use, not the risk of environmental harm caused by such an expansion or change in use." (Sunflower, supra, 20 Cal.5th 22.) The Court further held that although "the class 1 exemption may apply to new uses of an existing facility that involve 'negligible or no expansion' of an existing or former use (Guidelines,§ 15301) ... an agency should examine the nature and scope of the proposed expansion of use, rather than its potential environmental effects, in making its exemption determination." (Ibid.)
That distinction is decisive here.
The question is not simply whether the Five Crowns building already exists. It is not simply whether Five Crowns has operated as a restaurant for decades. It is not whether a September 1, 2026
Page No. 3
consultant believes speaker controls, landscaping, valet management, a sound wall, hours restrictions, or other proposed conditions could reduce resulting impacts.
The threshold Class 1 question is: What is the "existing or former use" against which P A2025-0208 is being compared, and does P A2025 involve only a negligible change in the nature and degree of that use?
The agency invoking a categorical exemption bears the burden of demonstrating, with substantial evidence, that the project falls within it. (Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa Cruz (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 694, 705 [ city "had the burden to demonstrate with substantial evidence that the Project falls within a categorical exemption to CEQA"]; cf. Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 386 [agency invoking the common-sense exemption "has the burden of demonstrating it applies"].) The City therefore cannot simply accept the applicant's label "No expansion." It must identify the comparator, identify the relevant characteristics of that comparator, measure the proposed change, and support any exemption determination with substantial evidence applying the correct legal standard.
Sunflower confirms that the Class 1 exemption can extend to a new use of an existing facility where the change in use is genuinely negligible. That does not assist the applicant here; it frames the City's burden. The City must demonstrate, on substantial evidence, that the change in the nature and degree of the outdoor patio and event use - not merely the continued existence of the restaurant building-is negligible. As set fo1ih below, the objective record makes that demonstration untenable.
II. THE OBJECTIVE NUMBERS ALONE PRESENT AN EXTRAORDINARY PROBLEM FOR ANY "NO EXPANSION" OR "NEGLIGIBLE EXPANSION"
FINDING
The operative permanent entitlement following surrender of PA2023-0202 is UP1822 unless the City identifies some other duly approved permanent Title 20 entitlement.
UP1822 reflects approximately 348 square feet of outdoor patio area, four tables, and six patrons per table, for approximately 24 outdoor patrons.
P A2023-0202 was a limited-term permit. Five Crowns surrendered it effective December 1, 2025, and the City confirmed that the rights afforded by that permit terminated upon surrender.
The City's January 8, 2026 project review document for P A2025-0208 nevertheless described the proposed project as a use-permit amendment, parking waiver and coastal development permit to allow "retention of the existing outdoor dining patio with live entertainment as accessory to the restau~ant use," expressly noting that "[t]he patio was previously approved with a limited term permit P A2023-0202" while "[ t]he existing restaurant operates under Use Permit No. UP1822."
September 1, 2026
Page No. 4
That description itself demonstrates the issue. A patio that required a limited-term permit is not transformed into a permanent entitlement merely because it physically existed while that temporary permit was in effect.
The October 2025 P A2025 materials described approximately 2,100 square feet of combined outdoor dining/event area. Revised May 26, 2026 materials subsequently used approximately 1,569 square feet of outdoor area and approximately 12,289 square feet of indoor area, while characterizing the proposal as involving "No expansion." The objective comparison is striking.
Increasing the outdoor use from approximately 348 square feet to approximately 1,569 square feet adds approximately 1,221 square feet. The proposed outdoor area is approximately
4.5 times the UP 1822 outdoor area, an increase of approximately 351 percent over the UP 1822 figure.
Increasing the outdoor patron population from approximately 24 persons to approximately 75 persons adds approximately 51 outdoor patrons. Approximately 75 outdoor patrons is 3.125 times the UP1822 outdoor capacity, an increase of approximately 212.5 percent.
These figures concern the paiiicular facility and use being expanded-the outdoor patio/event operation. They should not be diluted by comparing the additional outdoor activity against the gross square footage or total theoretical occupancy of the entire preexisting restaurant.
Sunflower asks whether the relevant use is negligibly expanded. A four-and-one-half-fold outdoor footprint and more-than-threefold outdoor patron capacity cannot simply be buried inside the size of the restaurant as a whole.
If the applicant or City contends that these objective changes nevertheless are "negligible," the administrative record must disclose precisely how and why.
III. THE CHANGE IS QUALITATIVE AS WELL AS QUANTITATIVE
The Sunflower analysis is not confined to square footage. The Supreme Court expressly speaks in terms of the nature as well as the degree of use.
P A2025 does not merely relocate the same 24 diners a few feet within an existing outdoor dining area. The project materials contemplate recurring private events and live entertainment in a substantially enlarged outdoor area, together with increased outdoor occupancy, altered operating hours, event-related parking and valet requirements, and other operational characteristics.
II
September 1, 2026
Page No. 5
Five Crowns itself publicly represented in 2023 that it "produces 150-200 weddings and events a year" and specifically marketed its greenhouse patio and garden for weddings, rehearsal dinners, bridal showers, engagement parties and other events. Whether all of those events occurred outdoors is a factual matter that Five Crowns and the City should document rather than assume. But the representation confirms that the frequency, location and character of the event business cannot rationally be ignored in defining the nature and degree of the proposed use.
The City has already recognized the materiality of these very subjects. Its completeness review sought information concerning event frequency, event size, maximum occupancy, type of music, regular restaurant use versus event use, recent event information, neighborhood compatibility and sound attenuation. Those are precisely the operational characteristics that Sunflower now requires the City to examine when determining the nature and degree of the proposed use.
Again, an expansion in the nature and degree of the use cannot be dismissed merely because no new restaurant building is proposed.
IV. TIMING, FREQUENCY, AND OPERATIONAL INTENSITY ARE PART OF THE "NATURE AND DEGREE" OF USE THAT SUNFLOWER REQUIRES THE
CITY TO EXAMINE
Because Sunflower directs the City to the change in the nature and degree of the facility's use, the Class 1 inquiry is not satisfied by observing that the restaurant building and its seated capacity are unchanged. An expansion in how often, how late, and how intensively an existing facility is operated is itself an expansion in the nature and degree of its use-even where no square footage is added to the principal structure and no seats are added to the dining room.
That principle is fatal to any suggestion that shifting or extending outdoor operations into recurring evening events is "negligible." A facility that is quiet on most evenings is materially different, in the nature and degree of its use, from the same facility operated as a recurring nighttime outdoor event venue. Categorical exemptions "are construed narrowly and will not be unreasonably expanded beyond their terms." (County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 966.)
Published authority confirms that a change in the nature or degree of use of an existing facility defeats Class 1 even where the physical structure is entirely unchanged. In County of Amador, the transfer and reoperation of an existing, physically unaltered hydroelectric facility from nonconsumptive to consumptive water use was "not a negligible expansion of current use"; it was "a major change in focus, and thus does not fall within the ... existing facilities categorical exemption." (County of Amador, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 967.) The Supreme Court cited that holding with approval in Sunflower. Likewise, in Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v.
Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1195, a massive increase in the volume and intensity of activity within an existing, unchanged footprint could not be treated as a "minor" alteration qualifying for Class 1. The principle is settled: it is the intensification of use, not merely the enlargement of a building, that removes a project from the exemption.
September 1, 2026
Page No. 6
Applied to Five Crowns, P A2025 does not merely shift the timing of an unchanged-capacity facility. The presently identified facts involve a several-fold increase in the outdoor operational footprint, a more-than-threefold increase in outdoor patron capacity, recurring private events, live entertainment, later outdoor hours than were applicable under PA2023, and attendant changes in parking, valet, loading, lighting, crowd activity and sound.
Each of those changes goes to the degree and character of the outdoor use, and each must be examined under Sunflower before the City may treat P A2025 as an exempt "existing facility." V. "NO EXPANSION" CANNOT BE MADE TRUE BY DEFINING "EXPANSION"
AS NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
The May 2026 characterization of P A2025 as "No expansion" is especially problematic after Sunflower.
If "No expansion" means only that Five Crowns does not propose to enlarge the principal restaurant building, the statement does not answer the Class 1 question.
The Supreme Court has now held that the inquiry concerns expansion or change in the use of the structure or facility. Thus, the City must determine whether there is expansion in outdoor area, outdoor occupancy, event frequency, event size, entertainment characteristics, nighttime operation, operational intensity, parking and valet demand, loading, and similar characteristics.
The City should therefore require the applicant to state whether its "No expansion" representation means:
• no physical addition to the restaurant building;
• no increase in outdoor operational area;
• no increase in outdoor patron capacity;
• no increase in the frequency, size or intensity of private events; • no expansion of live or amplified entertainment;
• no increase in operating hours; or
• no change of any kind in the nature or degree of the existing or former use.
The present record makes several of those propositions facially difficult, rather impossible to reconcile with the actual application.
VI. THREE DIFFERENT CONCEPTS MUST NOT BE COLLAPSED:
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE, LEGAL ENTITLEMENT, AND THE CLASS 1 "EXISTING OR FORMER USE"
For avoidance of any confusion, our objection distinguishes three analytically separate concepts.
First, a CEQA environmental baseline ordinarily concerns actual physical environmental conditions against which environmental change may ultimately be evaluated. We recognize that California baseline cases may permit consideration of actual or recent historical physical conditions in appropriate circumstances.
September 1, 2026
Page No. 7
Second, the legal entitlement question is different. After surrender of P A2023-0202, the City must identify the permanent land-use entitlement legally authorizing outdoor area, outdoor occupancy, private events, live entertainment, hours, parking and related operations. Physical activity does not become a pe1manent zoning entitlement merely because it occurred.
Third, Sunflower creates a distinct Class 1 inquiry: the City must identify the "existing or former use" against which the proposed expansion is measured under Guidelines section 15301.
Those concepts cannot be merged into the proposition that "Five Crowns physically operated this way for a period of time; therefore it is existing use; therefore P A2025 is no expansion."
If the City intends to use P A2023 operations as the "former use" for Class 1 purposes, it must say so expressly and identify exactly what P A2023 authorized and what was actually conducted under it. It must then compare that defined former use against P A2025 under Sunflower.
If instead the City maintains, as it has in the pending litigation, that P A2023 was smrendered and all rights under it terminated, the City must explain the legal significance it nevertheless proposes to assign those temporary operations in PA2025.
The permit cannot simultaneously disappear when judicial review of P A2023 is sought while its operational history is treated as a permanent or presumptive starting point for characterizing PA2025 as "No expansion."
Nor may unauthorized or temporarily permitted conduct acquire a permanent land-use entitlement through repetition, administrative tolerance, nonenforcement, or the subsequent issuance of event-specific pe1mits. Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Commission (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785 and related vested-rights authorities foreclose the proposition that conduct itself substitutes for the legally required entitlement.
VII. CHAPTER 11/SEBRSS PERMITS CANNOT BE USED TO BOOTSTRAP A PERMANENT TITLE 20 ENTITLEMENT OR MANUFACTURE THE CLASS 1
COMPARATOR
We are particularly concerned with the City's apparent post-surrender use of Chapter 11/SEBRSS or bundled special-event permits for Five Crowns operations while PA2025 remains pending.
The Newport Beach Municipal Code itself makes clear why those event permits cannot be treated as substitutes for the operative land-use entitlement.
Section 1 l .03.020(C)(3) expressly exempts from Chapter 11.03 "[l]ive entertainment at an established place of business, such as a restaurant or tavern," because such activity is regulated through Title 20 and Chapter 10.26. Five Crowns is unquestionably an established restaurant.
September 1, 2026
Page No. 8
Section 11. 03 .110 is equally important. It provides that permits required under Chapter 11 are in addition to any license or permit required under another chapter of the Code. Chapter 11 therefore does not create a mechanism by which an event permit silently amends, supersedes or enlarges UP 1822.
Moreover, Chapter 11 describes bundled event permits as authorizations for multiple events scheduled over a one-year period. Nothing in that temporary event-permitting framework purports to create a permanent Title 20 land-use right.
Accordingly, for every Chapter 11, SEBRSS, bundled-event, special-event, sound or similar permit issued or recognized for Five Crowns after December 1, 2025, the City should identify the precise statutory category under which the permit was issued, the area authorized, number of attendees, hours, activity and entertainment authorized, and the legal basis, if any, for believing that the permit could authorize activity beyond UP 1822.
For events below the 150-person thresholds appearing in portions of section 1 l.03.020(B), the City should identify the exact subsection relied upon and explain how its interpretation is reconciled with section 1 l.03.020(C)(3).
Most importantly, the City should state unequivocally whether it contends any event-specific Chapter 11 permit amended, superseded, suspended, waived or otherwise enlarged the permanent outdoor area or patron limits contained in UP 1822.
If the answer is no, post-surrender event activity cannot properly be portrayed as evidence that the permanent entitlement itself had already expanded.
VIII. THE CITY MAY NOT USE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE SUNFLOWER THRESHOLD INQUIRY
We recognize the precise limits of Sunflower. The Supreme Court did not decide its second granted issue concerning the circumstances under which conditions relating to environmental effects may accompany a categorical exemption.
But the Court did decide something critical here: an agency cannot determine that a substantial change in use fits Class 1 merely because it predicts the resulting environmental risk will be negligible. As the Court explained, "[t]he class 1 exemption does not mention the risk of environmental harm at all, and we must not read into the regulation words it does not contain." (Sunflower, supra, 20 Cal.5th 22.) The Court further warned that interpreting Class 1 "as extending to minor alterations to existing facilities having no or only a negligible risk of environmental harm risks conflating CEQA's second and third steps by requiring the lead agency to analyze environmental effects prematurely-without the full benefit of public participation and other procedural safeguards that a comprehensive environmental review normally entails." (Ibid.) II
II
September 1, 2026
Page No. 9
Thus, the City cannot answer the expansion question by stating that speakers will be directed away from residences, acoustical barriers will be installed, valet operations will be managed, landscaping will be enhanced, hours will be conditioned, or sound levels will be monitored.
Those measures may be relevant elsewhere in CEQA review or entitlement conditions.
They are not a substitute for first determining whether the change in the nature and degree of the use is itself negligible.
If that threshold is not met, Class 1 is unavailable and the City must proceed to the next appropriate stage of CEQA review, including an Initial Study where required, at which point the environmental consequences of noise, crowd activity, parking, traffic, lighting, loading, operating hours and related impacts must be properly evaluated.
IX. THE RESIDENTIAL SETTING AND EXISTING EVIDENCE ALSO REQUIRE
SERIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THE CATEGORICAL-EXEMPTION
EXCEPTIONS
Even if the City were able to establish that P A2025 falls within the initial scope of Class 1, that does not end CEQA analysis.
Guidelines section 15300.2(c) precludes reliance on a categorical exemption where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to unusual circumstances. See Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086.
We do not contend that residential proximity alone automatically establishes the exception. We do contend that the particular factual setting must be addressed rather than ignored: a recurring outdoor commercial/event operation located less than approximately 50 feet from neighboring residential property; amplified or live entertainment; repeated evening activity; increased outdoor occupancy; event crowds; lighting; parking and valet activity; and the extensive history of neighborhood complaints and documented impacts already supplied to the City.
Under Berkeley Hillside, the existence of a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to these particular circumstances is a question the City must confront on the evidence; it cannot be answered by the exemption label itself. The record already before the City-documented complaints, the residential proximity, and the recurring evening/entertainment character of the proposed outdoor operation-squarely raises that possibility and requires reasoned analysis rather than reliance upon categorical exemptions and operational conditions alone.
The City's administrative record must therefore contain the actual evidence and analysis rather than a conclusory exemption label.
X. SPECIFIC ACTION REQUESTED BEFORE ANY PA2025 DECISION Before P A2025-0208 is scheduled for final discretionary action, circulated with a proposed CEQA dete1mination, or recommended for approval, we request that the City provide a September 1, 2026
Page No. 10
written response identifying: the CEQA exemption, if any, the City presently contemplates; the precise "existing or former use" relied upon for any Class 1 analysis; whether that comparator is UP1822, PA2023-0202, alleged historical activity, post-surrender event-permit operations, or some combination; the evidence establishing the nature and degree of that comparator; and a component-by-component comparison of that use against PA2025.
The City should also explain the May 26, 2026 "No expansion" representation in light of Sunflower and the objective 348-square-foot/24-patron versus 1,569-square-foot/approximately 75-patron comparison.
We further request written confirmation that neither PA2023-0202 nor any Chapter 11/SEBRSS or other temporary/event-specific permit is being treated as having permanently amended or enlarged UP 1822 absent identification of a lawful Title 20 procedure accomplishing that result.
If the City concludes the proposed change in the nature or degree of use is more than negligible, it should expressly reject Class 1 and proceed with the CEQA process required by law.
We also request that City Manager Jurjis consider whether any continuing Chapter 11 events at Five Crowns warrant City Manager review under section l l .03.060(G), which expressly contemplates special review for events having potential for greater-than-usual noise, traffic or other impacts on nearby property owners and residents.
XI. SUPPLEMENTAL CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST
This portion of the letter constitutes a supplemental request under the California Public Records Act, Government Code section 7920.000 et seq., including section 7922.535. It supplements rather than withdraws, supersedes or narrows our prior CPRA requests. Please construe "records" to include email, text messages, Teams or similar electronic communications, memoranda, handwritten notes, attachments, drafts, redlines, comments, photographs, video, audio, databases, permit-system entries, audit trails, metadata, native spreadsheets, consultant files and other electronically stored information in the possession, custody or control of the City.
Please produce the following records:
REQUEST NO. 113: All nonprivileged records created, received, reviewed or circulated by the City from June 25, 2026 to the present referring or relating to Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation, S287414, 20 Cal.5th 22, in connection with PA2025-0208, Five Crowns, CEQA Class 1, Guidelines section 15301, "existing use," "f01mer use," expansion, intensification, retention, historical use, ancillary use or accessory use.
REQUEST NO. 114: Every CEQA screening document, exemption memorandum, categorical-exemption analysis, draft or proposed Notice of Exemption, Initial Study draft, consultant memorandum, staff analysis, email or other record considering whether P A2025-0208 qualifies for a Class 1 exemption.
September 1, 2026
Page No. 11
REQUEST NO. 115: All records supporting, explaining, drafting, reviewing, approving, revising or commenting upon the May 2026 statement that "No expansion of the existing use is being proposed," including records identifying who originated that language and what "expansion" was understood to mean.
REQUEST NO. 116: All records identifying the "existing or former use" the City or applicant contends should be used for a Class 1 comparison, including all records addressing whether the comparator is UP1822, PA2023-0202, COVID-era temporary operations, historical events, actual operations, Chapter 11/SEBRSS events, post-surrender operations, or another condition.
REQUEST NO. 117: All records comparing UP1822, PA2023-0202 and PA2025-0208 with respect to outdoor square footage, outdoor patrons, seating, occupancy, private-event frequency, event size, event duration, operating hours, live entertainment, amplified sound, lighting, parking, valet, traffic, loading, vendors, staffing and other operational characteristics.
REQUEST NO. 118: All records supporting any contention that an increase from approximately 348 square feet/24 outdoor patrons to approximately 1,569 square feet/approximately 75 outdoor patrons constitutes no expansion or only negligible, minor, incidental, ancillary or accessory expansion of use.
REQUEST NO. 119: All records tending to contradict, qualify, limit or undermine any "No expansion," negligible-expansion, ancillary-use, accessory-use, existing-use or historical-use contention, including records reflecting increased area, occupancy, event frequency, event size, hours, entertainment, parking/valet demand, staffing, vendors, lighting, loading or other operational differences.
REQUEST NO. 120: All records relied upon to establish historical outdoor private events at Five Crowns before August 26, 2020, including photographs and their native files/metadata, contemporaneous event calendars, contracts, banquet event orders, reservations, seating plans, guest counts, permits, approvals and records sufficient to establish the date, area, attendance, hours and entertainment associated with each claimed historical event.
REQUEST NO. 121: Every City permit or permanent entitlement relied upon to establish that any claimed historical outdoor private-event or live-entertainment activity was lawfully authorized when conducted.
REQUEST NO. 122: All Chapter 11, SEBRSS, bundled-event, special-event, sound or similar permit applications and permits concerning Five Crowns from January 1, 2004 through the present, together with site plans, attendance figures, event descriptions, hours, conditions and records sufficient to identify the earliest such application or permit in City records.
REQUEST NO. 123: All records concerning whether any Chapter 11/SEBRSS or similar permit amended, superseded, suspended, waived, enlarged or otherwise affected UP 1822, including records concerning sections 1 l.03.020(C)(3) and 11.03.110.
REQUEST NO. 124: All records showing whether operations occurring pursuant to PA2023-0202, Chapter 11/SEBRSS permits, bundled permits, sound permits, temporary September 1, 2026
Page No. 12
approvals or post-surrender activity have been or will be used as evidence of "existing," "former," "historical," "ancillary" or "accessory" use, as a CEQA environmental baseline, as an entitlement baseline, or as the Class 1 comparison use.
REQUEST NO. 125: All communications between the City and Five Crowns, Lawry's, Ryan Wilson, their attorneys, Robinson Hill Architecture, RK Engineering Group, Counts Unlimited or other applicant consultants concerning Sunflower, Class 1, no expansion, negligible expansion, historical use, existing use, former use, ancillary/accessory use, event frequency, occupancy, 60-person or 75-person limits, PA2023 smTender, Chapter 11/SEBRSS permits or the CEQA treatment of PA2025.
REQUEST NO. 126: All drafts and communications concerning any proposed outdoor/event occupancy condition of 60, 75 or another number, including who proposed each number, the factual or technical basis for it, the applicant's response, and the physical or operational impacts the proposed limitation was intended to address.
REQUEST NO. 127: All current or updated technical studies, reports, memoranda, calculations and native data concerning P A2025 noise, crowd noise, parking, traffic, valet operations, lighting, loading, event frequency, event attendance, event operations, and neighborhood impacts, including materials received from RK Engineering Group or other consultants that are not presently posted in the public P A2025 file.
REQUEST NO. 128: Records sufficient to show the number, frequency, attendance, duration and location of private events Five Crowns or the City relies upon to support any contention that private events or live ente1iainment are historically established, existing, former, ancillary or accessory uses.
REQUEST NO. 129: All records concerning Five Crowns' publicly represented production of approximately 150-200 weddings/events annually, including information supplied to the City establishing how many occurred outdoors, which outdoor areas were used, attendance, hours, entertainment, and the land-use or event permits under which they were conducted.
REQUEST NO. 130: All records concerning the City's December 11, 2025 incomplete determination and the applicant's responses concerning event frequency, event size, maximum occupants, music, regular versus event use, recent events, neighborhood compatibility, parking and sound attenuation.
REQUEST NO. 131: All records reflecting how, if at all, the City has evaluated the proposed increase in outdoor operating hours, nighttime outdoor use, event frequency and event intensity as part of the "nature and degree of use" inquiry required by Sunflower, including any analysis of whether that increase is negligible.
REQUEST NO. 132: Records sufficient to identify every City employee, officer, consultant or decisionmaker responsible for the City's current CEQA determination for P A2025-0208 and every person participating in defining the "existing or former use," "baseline," "No expansion," historical-use, ancillary-use or Class 1 positions.
September 1, 2026
Page No. 13
For electronically maintained responsive material, please produce records in their native - or reasonably usable electronic form where necessary to preserve metadata, formulas, timestamps, attachments and document families. Emails should be produced with attachments maintained with the parent email. Native photographs, audio and video should retain available metadata. Spreadsheets should be produced with formulas intact.
If responsive materials have been deleted, overwritten, lost, purged or otherwise become unavailable, please identify the record or category, approximate date, custodian and known disposition. If responsive records are withheld in whole or part, please identify the statutory basis for withholding and produce all reasonably segregable nonexempt portions.
Government Code section 7922.535 requires the City to make its determination concerning disclosable records within the statutory period. Please coordinate this supplemental request with the City Clerk and with the City personnel handling our existing CPRA requests to avoid duplication while ensuring that the newly identified Sunflower-related material is searched and produced.
XII. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND LITIGATION PRESERVATION
This correspondence should immediately be placed in the complete P A2025-0208 project file and retained for inclusion in any administrative record prepared under Public Resources Code section 21167.6.
The City and its departments, officers, employees and consultants are already on notice of pending litigation concerning Five Crowns and of disputes concerning PA2025, PA2023, UP1822, event permits, sound, parking, lighting, enforcement and CEQA. This letter renews and supplements the obligation to preserve potentially relevant evidence.
Preservation should include the complete P A2025 working file; correspondence folders; City permit databases; Chapter 11/SEBRSS files; emails; texts; Teams and similar communications; drafts and redlines; planner notes; consultant communications; photographs; recordings; metadata; audit trails; document-management histories; Quest materials; Code Enforcement files; Police records where relevant; and native technical data received from consultants.
No City employee, consultant or department should delete, purge, overwrite, alter, de-link, fail to download, or otherwise render unavailable material relating to these issues under an automatic retention or deletion schedule while the matters remain pending.
XIII. REQUEST FOR WRITTEN RESPONSE AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS We request written confirmation that this letter has been added to the P A2025 administrative/project record and routed to each City employee, consultant and decisionmaker presently participating in the processing or environmental review of P A2025-0208.
September 1, 2026
We further request a written response identifying whether the City presently contemplates use of the Class 1 categorical exemption and, if so, the exact existing or former use against which it proposes to measure P A2025 under Sunflower.
The fundamental issue can no longer be avoided by terminology. UP1822 reflects approximately 348 square feet and 24 outdoor patrons. P A2025 presently seeks approximately 1,569 square feet and approximately 75 outdoor patrons, together with materially expanded outdoor event and entertainment characteristics. Calling that proposal "retention," "ancillary," "accessory," "existing," "historical," or "No expansion" does not answer the question the California Supreme Court has now required the City to answer.
The question under Sunflower is whether P A2025 causes only a negligible change in the nature or degree of the relevant existing or former use. The City must identify that use, measure the change, and support its conclusion with evidence.
Until that analysis is performed, reliance on Class 1 would be premature and legally vulnerable.
Nothing in this letter waives any claim, objection, administrative remedy, CPRA right, CEQA argument, land-use objection, nuisance claim, enforcement position, appellate issue, or other right or remedy of Kenneth J. Catanzarite or Kim E. Catanzarite. All are expressly reserved.
Very truly yours,
cc: Nicholas J. Schuchert, Esq. ([email protected]) Chloe Ann Lee, Esq.([email protected])
Ginetta L. Giovinco ([email protected])
KENNETH J. CATANZARITEATTORNEY AT LAW
Direct Dial:
(714) 678-2100
Via Email Only:
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach CA, 92660
CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION
Attorneys & Counselors at Law
2331 West Lincoln Avenue
Anaheim, California 92801
(714) 520-5544
Facsimile: (714) 520-0680
September 16, 2026
[email protected]
E-Mail Address:
[email protected]
Direct Fax:
(714) 399-0577
Re: Planning Commission Meeting September 17, 2026 - Agenda Item No. 4 - Five Crowns Restaurant/ PA2023-0202 / Proposed Resolution No.
PC2026-027 - Limited Objection and Conditional Non-Opposition; Request for Void Ab Initio / No-Baseline Clarification re Pending CUP/ PA2025-0208 Dear Chair Salene, Members of the Planning Commission, City Staff, and City Attorney's Office:
Kenneth J. Catanzarite and Kim E. Catanzarite submit this limited objection and conditional non-opposition to Agenda Item No. 4 concerning Five Crowns Restaurant, PA2023-0202, the surrendered Limited Term Permit, City Council Resolution No. 2025-18, and proposed Resolution No. PC2026-027.
Petitioners do not object to the Planning Commission confirming that PA2023-0202 is no longer in effect, has not been in effect since surrender, and cannot be invoked by Five Crowns, Lawry's, FVP II, the City, or any other person in connection with any future discretionary approval or entitlement.
Petitioners support that purpose.
Petitioners object, however, to any resolution, staff report, CEQA finding, or subsequent City position that leaves room for PA2023-0202, Resolution No. 2025-18, or operations conducted under the Temporary Permit to be used directly or indirectly as a CEQA baseline, parking baseline, traffic baseline, noise baseline, lighting baseline, operational baseline, vested-rights theory, lawful-existing-use determination, or evidence of lawful ongoing or prior operation in connection with the pending new CUP / Use Permit Amendment application, P A2025-0208, or any other past or future approval.
The pending CUP / P A2025-0208 proceeding is the central issue. The City cannot take the position in litigation that PA2023-0202 is moot because it was surrendered, while simultaneously allowing the same surrendered temporary patio operation to become the baseline for the pending CUP / PA2025-0208.
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 16, 2026
Page No. 2
I. Petitioners Conditionally Support the Stated Purpose of Resolution No. PC2026-027 The Planning Commission staff report states that Ryan Wilson of Lawry's Restaurants Inc. surrendered P A2023-0202, and that the purpose of the present action is to confirm that P A2023-0202 has not been in force and effect since surrender and cannot be invoked in connection with any further discretionary approvals or entitlements requested by the Applicant.
Petitioners support that stated objective.
If P A2023-0202 was surrendered, then it no longer provides legal authority. If Resolution No. 2025-18 served only as the vehicle for approving P A2023-0202, then Resolution No. 2025-18 likewise has no independent legal utility after surrender of P A2023-0202.
Petitioners further agree that P A2023-0202 and Resolution No. 2025-18 should not be relied upon or invoked in connection with any future discretionary approval, including the pending CUP / P A2025-0208, any use permit amendment, coastal development permit, parking waiver, traffic analysis, CEQA determination, sound/noise analysis, lighting analysis, operational finding, or entitlement concerning Five Crowns.
II. The Resolution Should State PA2023-0202 and Resolution No. 2025-18 Are Void Ab Initio, or at Minimum Void and Without Legal Effect for Any Future Baseline or Entitlement Purpose
Petitioners' writ challenge contends that P A2023-0202 should never have been issued as a limited-term or temporary permit because the expanded patio, live entertainment, amplified sound, private events, parking impacts, noise impacts, lighting impacts, and related operations required a proper use permit amendment, CEQA review, parking analysis, noise analysis, and enforceable mitigation. Petitioners therefore do not agree that P A2023-0202 was valid until sun-ender. Petitioners contend it was invalid from inception.
For that reason, the resolution should not merely say that PA2023-0202 is no longer in effect as of the surrender date. If the City intends to use this Planning Commission action to resolve or moot the pending writ issues, the City must go further and make clear that P A2023-0202 and Resolution No. 2025-18 are void ab initio, or at minimum void and without legal force or effect for any future entitlement, baseline, CEQA, parking, traffic, noise, lighting, operational, existing-use, vested-rights, or evidentiary purpose.
The practical clarification is simple: for all future purposes, including P A2025-0208, P A2023-0202 must be treated as though it never conferred any lawful entitlement, vested right, baseline, approval, lawful existing use, or evidence of lawful ongoing operation.
II
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 16, 2026
Page No. 3
III. The Pending CUP / P A2025-0208 Is the Baseline Problem The City and Five Crowns are presently pursuing or processing the pending CUP/ Use Permit Amendment application, P A2025-0208. That application seeks to address, retain, formalize, or approve outdoor patio/courtyard operations, private events, live entertainment, parking, and related operational matters at Five Crowns.
That pending CUP proceeding is precisely why this resolution must be clear.
Petitioners are concerned that the City and Five Crowns will contend that P A2023-0202 is moot for purposes of Petitioners' writ challenge, but then use the same Temporary Permit operation as the "existing condition" or factual baseline for the pending CUP / P A2025-0208.
That cannot be permitted.
If PA2023-0202 is surrendered, void, no longer in force, and incapable of being invoked for future approvals, then it cannot be revived indirectly as the CEQA baseline, parking baseline, traffic baseline, noise baseline, lighting baseline, operational baseline, or evidence of lawful existing use for PA2025-0208.
The lawful baseline for P A2025-0208 is UP 1822 and any other presently valid entitlement, not PA2023-0202, not Resolution No. 2025-18, not the prior Emergency Temporary Use Permit, and not post-surrender SEBRSS/bundled-event permits that Petitioners have separately challenged.
UP 1822 is the operative use permit. Petitioners contend UP 1822 limits the outdoor patio to 348 square feet and 24 outdoor patrons and does not authorize the expanded patio, full courtyard, live entertainment, amplified sound, private events, recurring weddings/receptions, lighting impacts, parking/valet impacts, or event-venue operations now being pursued through P A2025-0208 and other City mechanisms.
IV. Petitioners Object to Any Baseline Loophole
The City and Five Crowns appear to be attempting to preserve room to argue later that, although PA2023-0202 is no longer legally effective, the patio operations conducted under P A2023-0202 may still be used as "existing conditions" or as the factual baseline for P A2025-0208.
Petitioners object to that position.
The City cannot moot the Temporary Permit in litigation and then revive the surrendered Temporary Permit condition as the baseline for the pending CUP.
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 16, 2026
Page No. 4
Nor may the City use the surrendered Temporary Permit operation to avoid CEQA, avoid an Initial Study, avoid parking analysis from the lawful UP 1822 baseline, avoid noise analysis, avoid lighting analysis, avoid cumulative-impact review, or avoid evaluating the operational impacts of private events and live entertainment.
If the Temporary Permit is dead, it is dead for baseline purposes too. If it was unlawful from inception, it cannot become the foundation for permanent approval.
V. Requested Revisions to Resolution No. PC2026-027
Petitioners request that Resolution No. PC2026-027 be revised to add the following clarifying language:
II
PA2023-0202 and Resolution No. 2025-18 are void ab initio, or at minimum void and without legal force or effect for any future entitlement, baseline, CEQA, parking, traffic, noise, lighting, operational, existing-use, vested-rights, or evidentiary purpose. PA2023-0202 and Resolution No. 2025-18 shall be treated as having conferred no lawful continuing entitlement, no vested right, no lawful-existing-use determination, and no baseline for the pending CUP/ Use Permit Amendment application P A2025-0208 or any future discretionary approval concerning Five Crowns.
Petitioners further request the following language:
PA2023-0202, Resolution No. 2025-18, and any operations conducted under them shall not be relied upon, invoked, cited, used, or considered, directly or indirectly, as legal authority, a vested right, an entitlement, a lawful-existing-use determination, a CEQA baseline, a parking baseline, a traffic baseline, a noise baseline, a lighting baseline, an operational baseline, or evidence of lawful ongoing operation in connection with P A2025-0208 or any future discretionary approval, entitlement, permit, waiver, coastal development permit, use permit amendment, CEQA determination, parking determination, traffic analysis, noise analysis, lighting analysis, or land-use decision concerning Five Crowns.
Petitioners further request the following language:
Nothing in this Resolution determines, approves, validates, recognizes, ratifies, or authorizes any outdoor patio area, outdoor seating, outdoor patron count, private event use, live entertainment, amplified sound, lighting, valet/loading activity, parking condition, or event operation beyond that authorized by UP 1822 or any other presently valid entitlement.
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 16, 2026
Page No. 5
Petitioners fmiher request the following language:
Nothing in this Resolution determines the merits of PA2025-0208, the pending CUP/ Use Permit Amendment application, any CEQA determination for PA2025-0208, any parking waiver, any use permit amendment, any coastal development permit, any noise or lighting violation, any nuisance issue, any SEBRSS/special-event/bundled permit issue, or any claim, defense, or remedy in pending litigation.
These revisions are necessary to prevent P A2023-0202 and Resolution No. 2025-18 from being used indirectly in P A2025-0208 for the same purpose the proposed resolution says they cannot serve directly.
VI. The Staff Report's CEQA Discussion Should Be Corrected Petitioners also object to staff report language that appears to rely on a Class 1 "Existing Facilities" rationale by describing the prior project as involving the temporary use of an approximately 1,350-square-foot outdoor dining area with an 850-square-foot tent canopy and exterior live entertainment at an existing restaurant.
That language is inappropriate for the action now before the Planning Commission.
The action now before the Planning Commission should be limited to confoming surrender, termination, and non-use of PA2023-0202 and Resolution No. 2025-18. The Planning Commission should not make any finding that validates, ratifies, approves, or re-approves the temporary 1,350-square-foot patio, live ente1iainment, tent canopy, temporary outdoor dining area, or operations conducted under P A2023-0202.
Most importantly, the Planning Commission should not create language that Five Crowns or the City may later cite in the pending CUP / P A2025-0208 proceeding as evidence that the 1,350-square-foot temporary patio with live entertainment is an "existing facility," "existing condition," "former use," "existing operation," or lawful baseline.
If the City's position is that this action merely confirms that P A2023-0202 is no longer in force and cannot be invoked, then the CEQA analysis should be limited to that termination/confirmation action. It should not contain language suggesting that the temporary patio and live-entertainment use qualifies as an existing facility or lawful baseline for PA2025-0208.
Petitioners request that the staff report and resolution be corrected to clarify that:
1. the Planning Commission is not approving, reapproving, validating, or ratifying the temporary patio or live-entertainment use;
2. the Planning Commission is not determining that the temporary patio qualifies as an existing facility for purposes of the pending CUP / P A2025-0208; City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 16, 2026
Page No. 6
3. the Planning Commission is not determining any CEQA baseline for P A2025-0208;
4. the Planning Commission is not determining any parking, traffic, noise, lighting, or operational baseline for PA2025-0208;
5. the Planning Commission is not determining that the temporary patio operation may be used as an existing-conditions baseline in any future CEQA, parking, traffic, noise, lighting, or land-use analysis.
VII. The Effective Date of Surrender Must Be Stated Accurately and Uniformly Petitioners also request that the City correct and clarify the effective date of surrender.
Counsel correspondence and City materials have referenced different surrender dates. The proposed resolution and staff report appear to use December 2, 2025. Counsel correspondence has referenced December 10, 2025.
The final resolution should state the accurate effective date and should use that date consistently. Petitioners' position is that P A2023-0202 has not been legally operative at any time after the effective surrender date stated in the final resolution and, for purposes of future approvals and baselines, should be treated as void ab initio or otherwise without legal effect.
VIII. The Resolution Should Not Be Used to Impair Pending Litigation or Petitioners' Rights
There are pending related Superior Court proceedings concerning Five Crowns, the City, the Temporary Permit, UP 1822, nuisance, enforcement, and related issues.
Petitioners reserve all rights, claims, remedies, objections, writ claims, nuisance claims, administrative claims, CEQA objections, land-use objections, and evidentiary positions.
Petitioners do not agree that adoption of Resolution No. PC2026-027, without the clarifying revisions requested above, moots all issues in the pending litigation.
If the City wants to use this Planning Commission action as a basis for a stipulation or mootness position in Superior Court, the resolution must be clear and complete. It must foreclose any later use of PA2023-0202, Resolution No. 2025-18, or operations conducted under the Temporary Permit as a baseline or evidence of lawful existing use in the pending CUP I P A2025-0208.
Absent the requested clarifying language, Petitioners will object to any contention that the resolution moots Petitioners' writ claims or eliminates the need for judicial relief.
I I
II
II
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 16, 2026
Page No. 7
IX. PA2025-0208 Must Be Evaluated Independently Under the Correct Baseline The proposed resolution cannot be used to sanitize P A2025-0208.
P A2025-0208 must be evaluated independently under the governing law, including UP 1822, Title 20, Title 21, CEQA, parking requirements, traffic requirements, Chapter 10.26, Chapter 10.28, lighting requirements, nuisance law, and all applicable standards.
For PA2025-0208, the City may not use PA2023-0202, Resolution No. 2025-18, or the temporary patio operations conducted under them as the lawful existing baseline. If P A2023-0202 is void, surrendered, and of no further force and effect, then the City must evaluate P A2025-0208 against UP 1822 and presently valid legal entitlements, not against the surrendered temporary patio condition.
This is not a technical point. It affects every future finding for P A2025-0208, including:
• CEQA baseline;
• Class 1 exemption analysis;
• common-sense exemption analysis;
• Initial Study requirement;
• parking waiver analysis;
• traffic and valet analysis;
• noise analysis;
• lighting analysis;
• live entertainment findings;
• private event impacts;
• nuisance findings;
• compatibility with surrounding residential uses;
• consistency with UP 1822.
X. Petitioners Request Inclusion in the Record
Petitioners request that this limited objection be:
1. distributed to all Planning Commissioners before the September 17, 2026 hearing;
2. included in the administrative record for Agenda Item No. 4;
3. included in the P A2023-0202 file;
4. included in the P A2025-0208 I pending CUP file;
5. included in any City Attorney file or litigation file concerning Catanzarite v. City of Newport Beach and related Five Crowns matters;
6. included in any future administrative record concerning Five Crowns, UP 1822, PA2025-0208, the pending CUP I Use Permit Amendment application, SEBRSS permits, bundled-event permits, special-event permits, parking, CEQA, noise, lighting, or nuisance issues.
II
II
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 16, 2026
XI. Conditional Non-Opposition and Reservation of Rights Petitioners conditionally do not oppose Resolution No. PC2026-027 if it is revised to make clear that PA2023-0202, Resolution No. 2025-18, and operations conducted under them are void ab initio, or at minimum void and without legal force or effect for any future baseline or entitlement purpose, and cannot be used directly or indirectly as any future baseline or evidence of lawful existing use, including in the pending CUP / PA2025-0208.
If the Planning Commission adopts the resolution without the requested clarifying language, Petitioners object and reserve all rights to argue that the resolution is incomplete, ambiguous, and insufficient to moot the pending writ issues or prevent use of the surrendered Temporary Pe1mit as an improper baseline for PA2025-0208.
Petitioners also reserve all rights to appeal, seek call for review, supplement the Superior Court record, oppose any mootness stipulation that lacks adequate protections, and pursue all remedies necessary to prevent the surrendered Temporary Permit from being used to support P A2025-0208 or any future approval.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth J. Catanzarite
KENNETH J. CATANZARITEATTORNEY AT LAW
Direct Dial:
(714) 678-2100
CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION
Attorneys & Counselors at Law
2331 West Lincoln Avenue
Anaheim, California 92801
(714) 520-5544
Facsimile: (714) 520-0680
E-Mail Address:
[email protected]
Direct Fax:
(714) 399-0577
September 17, 2026
Via Email Only:
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach CA, 92660
[email protected]
Re: PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH J. CATANZARITE
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 - AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 - FIVE CROWNS - PA2023-0202 / RESOLUTION NO.
PC2026-027; RELATED MATTER: PA2025-0208
FOR INCLUSION IN THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 AND IN THE PA2025-0208 PROJECT FILE AND RECORD PRESENTED TO THE DECISION MAKERS
Submitted by: Kenneth J. and Kim E. Catanzarite
Properties: 352 and 354 Hazel Drive, Corona del Mar, California Good evening. Kenneth Catanzarite for Kenneth and Kim Catanzarite. We own 352 and 354 Hazel Drive, directly across from the Five Crowns courtyard.
I incorporate our September 16 written Limited Objection, this statement, Attachment A, and all of our prior submissions and evidence into the record.
I want to make five points.
First - the physical scale of the use, UP 1822, and the surrendered Temporary Permit.
The courtyard operation at issue is not a minor extension of an existing patio.
PA2023-0202 involved approximately 1,350 square feet. The pending permanent application, PA2025-0208, now uses approximately 1,569 square feet of outdoor area.
The controlling permanent entitlement, UP 1822, permits only approximately 348 square feet, four outdoor tables and 24 outdoor patrons. The current proposal is therefore roughly four-and-one-half times the permanently entitled outdoor area.
Five Crowns surrendered PA2023-0202. We support confirming tonight that it is no longer in force and Resolution 2025-18 has no independent utility.
Catanzarite - Five Crowns - Planning Commission 9/17/26 Agenda Item 4
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 17, 2026
Page No. 2
But the City cannot maintain in Superior Court that our challenge to P A2023 is moot because the permit was surrendered, while treating those same temporary operations as a continuing legal entitlement or lawful existing use for P A2025.
Historical operations may be evidence of actual impacts, including nuisance impacts.
They are not a source of permanent entitlement. If the City proposes to use those temporary operations as a CEQA physical baseline, it must expressly identify and legally justify doing so rather than silently treating a surrendered temporary operation as the permanent pre-project condition.
Second - the noise and light violations preceded surrender and continued after surrender.
We installed professional Class 1 continuous sound monitoring in July 2025 and have operated it continuously since July 18, 2025.
During the Temporary Permit period we documented extensive exterior-noise exceedances, as well as light violations and repeatedly notified the City. After surrender in December, Five Crowns nevertheless continued its expanded courtyard and event operations while P A2025 remained pending.
Our Class 1 monitoring and reporting continued through December, January, February and March and thereafter. We repeatedly provided the City the measurements, videos, photographs and complaints. The expanded operation continued.
Third - the later SEBRSS and bundled Event Permit practice does not authorize these courtyard operations.
UP 1822 remains controlling: 348 square feet and 24 patrons.
A Chapter 11 Event Permit cannot convert that entitlement into use of the entire 1,350- to 1,569-square-foot courtyard. It cannot amend UP 1822, increase permanent outdoor capacity, or convert Five Crowns into a recurring outdoor event venue. Section 11.03.110 itself says Chapter 11 permits are in addition to permits required by other chapters-not substitutes for them.
There is a second independent preclusion. Section 1 l.03.020(C)(3) expressly excludes live entertainment at an established restaurant or tavern from Chapter 11.03 and directs that activity to Title 20 and Chapter 10.26. Five Crowns is an established restaurant.
So the City cannot use SEBRSS as an end-run-first to authorize courtyard use beyond UP 1822, and then to characterize the restaurant's amplified entertainment as a Chapter 11 event to escape Chapter 10.32.
Catanzarite - Five Crowns - Planning Commission 9/17/26 Agenda Item 4
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 17, 2026
Page No. 3
These events use DJs, speakers, microphones and amplified entertainment. Chapter
10.32 prohibits use of sound-amplifying equipment after 8:00 p.m., as well as sound audible more than 100 feet or unreasonably loud, raucous, disturbing or a nuisance.
UP 1822 does not authorize amplified sound. No other presently operative Title 20 entitlement has been identified that does. The Chapter 11 special-event exception therefore cannot be used to avoid the 8:00 p.m. restriction for restaurant entertainment that Chapter 11 itself excludes.
Fourth - the City and Five Crowns already knew substantial mitigation was necessary.
Five Crowns' own consultant, RK Engineering, issued its Updated Noise Analysis on August 5, 2024.
Based on that analysis, the Planning Commission's approval required a sound attenuation wall, a ten-foot Hazel Drive gate, acoustical paneling, dense shrubbery, speaker-location controls, bass restrictions, DJ filters and limiters, and follow-up monitoring of private events.
Those measures were intended to achieve compliance with the City's noise regulations during expanded outdoor dining and private events with exterior live entertainment. Substantially all of those mitigating measures have not been installed.
Yet recurring events continued while our Class 1 monitoring documented the resulting sound impacts, together with lighting, parking and valet impacts at our homes.
Fifth - the City has been given an extensive evidentiary record.
Beginning December 24, 2025, we made repeated formal submissions on March 23, March 30, April 10, April 29, May 26, June 1, June 17, September 1 and thereafter.
The identified Dropbox Bates ranges alone total at least 8,376, apart from continuous electronic sound data, videos, audio recordings, photographs, police-call materials and later evidence.
Our June 17 submission expressly demanded inclusion of those materials in P A2025-0208 and objected to use of event, sound, special-event or bundled-event permits as substitutes for the CUP or as evidence of compatibility, historical use or lawful operations.
Yet the P A2025 file made available to us still does not reflect these numerous submissions, and the City has never confirmed their inclusion.
So tonight's record should be unmistakable: this is not merely about a surrendered Temporary Permit. It concerns UP 1822's controlling 348-square-foot limitation; continuing post-surrender operations; serial SEBRSS Event Permits; amplified sound after Catanzarite - Five Crowns - Planning Commission 9/17/26 Agenda Item 4
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 17, 2026
Page No. 4
8:00 p.m.; continuing documented impacts upon our homes; the Planning Commission's prior technical finding that substantial mitigation was required; and the completeness of the record that will ultimately be presented on P A2025-0208.
We reserve all rights.
Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
enne . Catanzarite
In • aually and on behalf of Kenneth J. and Kim E. Catanzarite Catanzarite - Five Crowns - Planning Commission 9/17/26 Agenda Item 4
ATTACHMENT A
KENNETH J. AND KIME. CATANZARITE
FIVE CROWNS - PA2025-0208 I UP 1822 I PA2023-0202
PRIOR SUBMISSIONS, EVIDENTIARY PRODUCTIONS, AND ISSUES PRESERVED This Attachment accompanies and is incorporated into Kenneth J. Catanzarite's September 17, 2026 statement to the Newport Beach Planning Commission regarding Agenda Item No. 4.
The Catanzarites incorporate all prior submissions, objections, monitoring evidence, videos, photographs, audio recordings, Dropbox productions, Quest submissions, police-call materials, enforcement requests, CPRA materials and correspondence concerning Five Crowns.
A. UP 1822 - Controlling Permanent Outdoor Entitlement
UP 1822 authorizes approximately:
• 348 square feet of outdoor patio;
• four tables;
• six persons per table; and
• 24 outdoor patrons total.
UP 1822 did not authorize full-courtyard use, recurring event use, increased outdoor occupancy, amplified sound or expanded evening entertainment operations. The Catanzarites' March 23 formal objection expressly identified those limitations.
By comparison, PA2023-0202 involved approximately 1,350 square feet of outdoor operation and the revised P A2025-0208 materials use approximately 1,569 square feet of outdoor area. The latter is approximately 1,221 square feet greater than UP 1822 and about 4.5 times its outdoor area.
The Catanzarites preserve their objection that no temporary, Chapter 11, SEBRSS, bundled-event, sound-amplification or other event-specific permit may enlarge the permanent land-use rights granted by UP 1822.
B. Principal Prior Submissions and Productions
December 24, 2025 - Formal post-surrender demand addressing enforcement, UP 1822, P A2025-0208 and continued expanded operations.
March 23, 2026 - Monitoring Evidence Submission - Class 1 sound-monitoring evidence, videos, photographs and supporting materials submitted for inclusion in PA2025-0208.
March 23, 2026 - Formal CUP Objections - UP 1822 limitations, PA2023 history, sound violations, CEQA and proposed expanded use.
March 30, 2026 - Supplemental record submission; identified Dropbox material at PLNT PODs 006979-007167.
Catanzarite - Five Crowns - Planning Commission 9/17/26 Agenda Item 4
April 10, 2026 - Supplemental objection addressing nonacknowledgment of prior materials and continued operations; PLNT PODs 007169-007234. The letter expressly stated that the City had not acknowledged receipt or confirmed inclusion of the materials.
April 29, 2026 - Supplemental evidence concerning sound, lighting, traffic, loading and continuing impacts; PLNT PODs 007235-007355.
May 26, 2026 - Further augmentation concerning continuing sound, lighting, parking, valet and event impacts; PLNT PODs 007356-007814.
June 1, 2026 - Further monitoring, enforcement and police-response evidence.
June 16, 2026 - CPRA concerning Event Permits, sound permits, UP 1822, Chapter 10.32 and the City's asserted legal authority.
June 17, 2026 - Supplemental CUP Objection, Evidence Transmittal, Record Lodging and Request for Confirmation of Record Inclusion; PLNT PODs 007955-008142. It expressly incorporated all earlier submissions and demanded placement of the evidence into PA2025-0208 and all related City files.
June 19, 2026 - Fmiher formal notice concerning SEBRSS/bundled permits, including requests for the legal authority by which such permits could authorize use beyond the 348-square-foot UP 1822 patio, recurring weddings and receptions, amplified sound, lighting, parking, loading or valet impacts.
September 1, 2026 - Supplemental formal objection concerning P A2025-0208, Chapter 11/SEBRSS, Class 1 CEQA treatment and use of temporary or post-surrender operations as an "existing or former use."
September 16, 2026 - Limited Objection and Conditional Non-Opposition concerning proposed Resolution No. PC2026-027.
The expressly identified Bates ranges above total at least 1,023 documentary pages, apart from continuous electronic monitoring, audio, video, photographs, Quest materials and other evidence.
C. Record Request and Reservation
The Catanzarites request that:
1. the September 17 prepared statement, this Attachment, and the September 16 submission be included in the record for Agenda Item No. 4;
2. all prior referenced submissions and supporting evidence be placed in the P A2025-0208 planning file and in the materials ultimately presented to its decisionmakers;
3. no P A2023 temporary operation or post-surrender Event Permit be treated as creating a permanent entitlement beyond UP 1822;
4. any CEQA baseline used for P A2025-0208 be expressly identified and legally justified;
Catanzarite - Five Crowns - Planning Commission 9/17/26 Agenda Item 4
5. the City not treat tonight's termination proceeding as establishing or prejudging any finding concerning PA2025-0208, including "existing use," "former use," "no expansion," noise compliance, parking compliance or event entitlement; and
6. all rights concerning P A2023-0202, P A2025-0208, the serial Event Permits, sound amplification, enforcement, nuisance and pending judicial proceedings remain expressly reserved.
Catanzarite - Five Crowns - Planning Commission 9/17/26 Agenda Item 4
ATTACHMENT B
KENNETH J. AND KIME. CATANZARITE
FIVE CROWNS - P A2025-0208 I UP 1822 / P A2023-0202
SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 LIMITED OBJECTION AND CONDITIONAL
NON-OPPOSITION
Catanzarite - Five Crowns - Planning Commission 9/17/26 Agenda Item 4
KENN ETH J. CATANZARITEATTORNEY AT LAW
Direct Dial:
(714) 678-2100
Via Email Only:
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach CA, 92660
CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION
Attorneys & Counselors at Law
2331 West Li ncoln Aven ue
Anaheim, Ca lifornia 92801
(714) 520-5544
Facsimile: (714) 520-0680
September 16, 2026
[email protected]
E-Mail Address:
[email protected]
Direct Fax:
(714) 399-0577
Re: Planning Commission Meeting September 17, 2026 - Agenda Item No. 4 - Five Crowns Restaurant/ PA2023-0202 / Proposed Resolution No.
PC2026-027 - Limited Objection and Conditional Non-Opposition; Request for Void Ab Initio / No-Baseline Clarification re Pending CUP / PA2025-0208 Dear Chair Salene, Members of the Planning Commission, City Staff, and City Attorney's Office:
Kenneth J. Catanzarite and Kim E. Catanzarite submit this limited objection and conditional non-opposition to Agenda Item No. 4 concerning Five Crowns Restaurant, PA2023-0202, the surrendered Limited Term Permit, City Council Resolution No. 2025-18, and proposed Resolution No. PC2026-027.
Petitioners do not object to the Planning Commission confirming that PA2023-0202 is no longer in effect, has not been in effect since surrender, and cannot be invoked by Five Crowns, Lawry's, FVP II, the City, or any other person in connection with any future discretionary approval or entitlement.
Petitioners support that purpose.
Petitioners object, however, to any resolution, staff report, CEQA finding, or subsequent City position that leaves room for P A2023-0202, Resolution No. 2025-18, or operations conducted under the Temporary Permit to be used directly or indirectly as a CEQA baseline, parking baseline, traffic baseline, noise baseline, lighting baseline, operational baseline, vested-rights theory, lawful-existing-use determination, or evidence of lawful ongoing or prior operation in connection with the pending new CUP / Use Permit Amendment application, P A2025-0208, or any other past or future approval.
The pending CUP / P A2025-0208 proceeding is the central issue. The City cannot take the position in litigation that P A2023-0202 is moot because it was surrendered, while simultaneously allowing the same smTendered temporary patio operation to become the baseline for the pending CUP / PA2025-0208.
Catanzarite - Five Crowns - Planning Commission 9/17/26 Agenda Item 4
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 16, 2026
Page No. 2
I. Petitioners Conditionally Support the Stated Purpose of Resolution No. PC2026-027 The Planning Commission staff report states that Ryan Wilson of Lawry's Restaurants Inc. surrendered P A2023-0202, and that the purpose of the present action is to confirm that P A2023-0202 has not been in force and effect since surrender and cannot be invoked in connection with any further discretionary approvals or entitlements requested by the Applicant.
Petitioners support that stated objective.
If P A2023-0202 was surrendered, then it no longer provides legal authority. If Resolution No. 2025-18 served only as the vehicle for approving P A2023-0202, then Resolution No. 2025-18 likewise has no independent legal utility after surrender of P A2023-0202.
Petitioners further agree that P A2023-0202 and Resolution No. 2025-18 should not be relied upon or invoked in connection with any future discretionary approval, including the pending CUP / P A2025-0208, any use permit amendment, coastal development permit, parking waiver, traffic analysis, CEQA determination, sound/noise analysis, lighting analysis, operational finding, or entitlement concerning Five Crowns.
II. The Resolution Should State PA2023-0202 and Resolution No. 2025-18 Are Void Ab Initio, or at Minimum Void and Without Legal Effect for Any Future Baseline or Entitlement Purpose
Petitioners' writ challenge contends that P A2023-0202 should never have been issued as a limited-term or temporary permit because the expanded patio, live entertainment, amplified sound, private events, parking impacts, noise impacts, lighting impacts, and related operations required a proper use permit amendment, CEQA review, parking analysis, noise analysis, and enforceable mitigation. Petitioners therefore do not agree that P A2023-0202 was valid until surrender. Petitioners contend it was invalid from inception.
For that reason, the resolution should not merely say that PA2023-0202 is no longer in effect as of the surrender date. If the City intends to use this Planning Commission action to resolve or moot the pending writ issues, the City must go further and make clear that P A2023-0202 and Resolution No. 2025-18 are void ab initio, or at minimum void and without legal force or effect for any future entitlement, baseline, CEQA, parking, traffic, noise, lighting, operational, existing-use, vested-rights, or evidentiary purpose.
The practical clarification is simple: for all future purposes, including P A2025-0208, P A2023-0202 must be treated as though it never conferred any lawful entitlement, vested right, baseline, approval, lawful existing use, or evidence of lawful ongoing operation.
II
Catanzarite - Five Crowns - Planning Commission 9/17/26 Agenda Item 4
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 16, 2026
Page No. 3
III. The Pending CUP / P A2025-0208 Is the Baseline Problem The City and Five Crowns are presently pursuing or processing the pending CUP/ Use Permit Amendment application, PA2025-0208. That application seeks to address, retain, formalize, or approve outdoor patio/courtyard operations, private events, live entertainment, parking, and related operational matters at Five Crowns.
That pending CUP proceeding is precisely why this resolution must be clear.
Petitioners are concerned that the City and Five Crowns will contend that P A2023-0202 is moot for purposes of Petitioners' writ challenge, but then use the same Temporary Permit operation as the "existing condition" or factual baseline for the pending CUP/ PA2025-0208.
That cannot be permitted.
If PA2023-0202 is surrendered, void, no longer in force, and incapable of being invoked for future approvals, then it cannot be revived indirectly as the CEQA baseline, parking baseline, traffic baseline, noise baseline, lighting baseline, operational baseline, or evidence of lawful existing use for PA2025-0208.
The lawful baseline for P A2025-0208 is UP 1822 and any other presently valid entitlement, not PA2023-0202, not Resolution No. 2025-18, not the prior Emergency Temporary Use Permit, and not post-surrender SEBRSS/bundled-event permits that Petitioners have separately challenged.
UP 1822 is the operative use permit. Petitioners contend UP 1822 limits the outdoor patio to 348 square feet and 24 outdoor patrons and does not authorize the expanded patio, full courtyard, live entertainment, amplified sound, private events, recurring weddings/receptions, lighting impacts, parking/valet impacts, or event-venue operations now being pursued through P A2025-0208 and other City mechanisms.
IV. Petitioners Object to Any Baseline Loophole
The City and Five Crowns appear to be attempting to preserve room to argue later that, although P A2023-0202 is no longer legally effective, the patio operations conducted under PA2023-0202 may still be used as "existing conditions" or as the factual baseline for P A2025-0208.
Petitioners object to that position.
The City cannot moot the Temporary Permit in litigation and then revive the surrendered Temporary Permit condition as the baseline for the pending CUP.
Catanzarite - Five Crowns - Planning Commission 9/17/26 Agenda Item 4
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 16, 2026
Page No. 4
Nor may the City use the surrendered Temporary Permit operation to avoid CEQA, avoid an Initial Study, avoid parking analysis from the lawful UP 1822 baseline, avoid noise analysis, avoid lighting analysis, avoid cumulative-impact review, or avoid evaluating the operational impacts of private events and live entertainment.
If the Temporary Permit is dead, it is dead for baseline purposes too. If it was unlawful from inception, it cannot become the foundation for permanent approval.
V. Requested Revisions to Resolution No. PC2026-027
Petitioners request that Resolution No. PC2026-027 be revised to add the following clarifying language:
II
PA2023-0202 and Resolution No. 2025-18 are void ab initio, or at minimum void and without legal force or effect for any future entitlement, baseline, CEQA, parking, traffic, noise, lighting, operational, existing-use, vested-rights, or evidentiary purpose. PA2023-0202 and Resolution No. 2025-18 shall be treated as having conferred no lawful continuing entitlement, no vested right, no lawful-existing-use determination, and no baseline for the pending CUP/ Use Permit Amendment application P A2025-0208 or any future discretionary approval concerning Five Crowns.
Petitioners further request the following language:
PA2023-0202, Resolution No. 2025-18, and any operations conducted under them shall not be relied upon, invoked, cited, used, or considered, directly or indirectly, as legal authority, a vested right, an entitlement, a lawful-existing-use determination, a CEQA baseline, a parking baseline, a traffic baseline, a noise baseline, a lighting baseline, an operational baseline, or evidence of lawful ongoing operation in connection with P A2025-0208 or any future discretionary approval, entitlement, permit, waiver, coastal development permit, use permit amendment, CEQA determination, parking determination, traffic analysis, noise analysis, lighting analysis, or land-use decision concerning Five Crowns.
Petitioners further request the following language:
Nothing in this Resolution determines, approves, validates, recognizes, ratifies, or authorizes any outdoor patio area, outdoor seating, outdoor patron count, private event use, live entertainment, amplified sound, lighting, valet/loading activity, parking condition, or event operation beyond that authorized by UP 1822 or any other presently valid entitlement.
Catanzarite - Five Crowns - Planning Commission 9/17/26 Agenda Item 4
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 16, 2026
Page No. 5
Petitioners further request the following language:
Nothing in this Resolution determines the merits of PA2025-0208, the pending CUP/ Use Permit Amendment application, any CEQA determination for PA2025-0208, any parking waiver, any use permit amendment, any coastal development permit, any noise or lighting violation, any nuisance issue, any SEBRSS/special-event/bundled permit issue, or any claim, defense, or remedy in pending litigation.
These revisions are necessary to prevent P A2023-0202 and Resolution No. 2025-18 from being used indirectly in P A2025-0208 for the same purpose the proposed resolution says they cannot serve directly.
VI. The Staff Report's CEQA Discussion Should Be Corrected Petitioners also object to staff report language that appears to rely on a Class 1 "Existing Facilities" rationale by describing the prior project as involving the temporary use of an approximately 1,350-square-foot outdoor dining area with an 850-square-foot tent canopy and exterior live entertainment at an existing restaurant.
That language is inappropriate for the action now before the Planning Commission.
The action now before the Planning Commission should be limited to confirming surrender, termination, and non-use of P A2023-0202 and Resolution No. 2025-18. The Planning Commission should not make any finding that validates, ratifies, approves, or re-approves the temporary 1,350-square-foot patio, live entertainment, tent canopy, temporary outdoor dining area, or operations conducted under P A2023-0202.
Most importantly, the Planning Commission should not create language that Five Crowns or the City may later cite in the pending CUP / P A2025-0208 proceeding as evidence that the 1,350-square-foot temporary patio with live entertainment is an "existing facility," "existing condition," "former use," "existing operation," or lawful baseline.
If the City's position is that this action merely confirms that P A2023-0202 is no longer in force and cannot be invoked, then the CEQA analysis should be limited to that te1mination/confirmation action. It should not contain language suggesting that the temporary patio and live-entertainment use qualifies as an existing facility or lawful baseline for P A2025-0208.
Petitioners request that the staff report and resolution be corrected to clarify that:
1. the Planning Commission is not approving, reapproving, validating, or ratifying the temporary patio or live-entertainment use;
2. the Planning Commission is not determining that the temporary patio qualifies as an existing facility for purposes of the pending CUP/ PA2025-0208; Catanzarite - Five Crowns - Planning Commission 9/17/26 Agenda Item 4
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 16, 2026
Page No. 6
3. the Planning Commission is not determining any CEQA baseline for P A2025-0208;
4. the Planning Commission is not determining any parking, traffic, noise, lighting, or operational baseline for P A2025-0208;
5. the Planning Commission is not determining that the temporary patio operation may be used as an existing-conditions baseline in any future CEQA, parking, traffic, noise, lighting, or land-use analysis.
VII. The Effective Date of Surrender Must Be Stated Accurately and Uniformly Petitioners also request that the City correct and clarify the effective date of surrender.
Counsel correspondence and City materials have referenced different surrender dates. The proposed resolution and staff report appear to use December 2, 2025. Counsel correspondence has referenced December 10, 2025.
The final resolution should state the accurate effective date and should use that date consistently. Petitioners' position is that PA2023-0202 has not been legally operative at any time after the effective surrender date stated in the final resolution and, for purposes of future approvals and baselines, should be treated as void ab initio or otherwise without legal effect.
VIII. The Resolution Should Not Be Used to Impair Pending Litigation or Petitioners' Rights
There are pending related Superior Court proceedings concerning Five Crowns, the City, the Temporary Permit, UP 1822, nuisance, enforcement, and related issues.
Petitioners reserve all rights, claims, remedies, objections, writ claims, nuisance claims, administrative claims, CEQA objections, land-use objections, and evidentiary positions.
Petitioners do not agree that adoption of Resolution No. PC2026-027, without the clarifying revisions requested above, moots all issues in the pending litigation.
If the City wants to use this Planning Commission action as a basis for a stipulation or mootness position in Superior Court, the resolution must be clear and complete. It must foreclose any later use of PA2023-0202, Resolution No. 2025-18, or operations conducted under the Temporary Permit as a baseline or evidence of lawful existing use in the pending CUP I P A2025-0208.
Absent the requested clarifying language, Petitioners will object to any contention that the resolution moots Petitioners' writ claims or eliminates the need for judicial relief.
II
II
II
Catanzarite - Five Crowns - Planning Commission 9/17/26 Agenda Item 4
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 16, 2026
Page No. 7
IX. P A2025-0208 Must Be Evaluated Independently Under the Correct Baseline The proposed resolution cannot be used to sanitize PA2025-0208.
P A2025-0208 must be evaluated independently under the governing law, including UP 1822, Title 20, Title 21, CEQA, parking requirements, traffic requirements, Chapter 10.26, Chapter 10.28, lighting requirements, nuisance law, and all applicable standards.
For PA2025-0208, the City may not use PA2023-0202, Resolution No. 2025-18, or the temporary patio operations conducted under them as the lawful existing baseline. If P A2023-0202 is void, surrendered, and of no further force and effect, then the City must evaluate P A2025-0208 against UP 1822 and presently valid legal entitlements, not against the surrendered temporary patio condition.
This is not a technical point. It affects every future finding for P A2025-0208, including:
• CEQA baseline;
• Class 1 exemption analysis;
• common-sense exemption analysis;
• Initial Study requirement;
• parking waiver analysis;
• traffic and valet analysis;
• noise analysis;
• lighting analysis;
• live entertainment findings;
• private event impacts;
• nuisance findings;
• compatibility with surrounding residential uses;
• consistency with UP 1822.
X. Petitioners Request Inclusion in the Record
Petitioners request that this limited objection be:
1. distributed to all Planning Commissioners before the September 17, 2026 hearing;
2. included in the administrative record for Agenda Item No. 4;
3. included in the P A2023-0202 file;
4. included in the P A2025-0208 I pending CUP file;
5. included in any City Attorney file or litigation file concerning Catanzarite v. City of Newport Beach and related Five Crowns matters;
6. included in any future administrative record concerning Five Crowns, UP 1822, PA2025-0208, the pending CUP I Use Permit Amendment application, SEBRSS permits, bundled-event pe1mits, special-event permits, parking, CEQA, noise, lighting, or nuisance issues.
II
II
Catanzarite - Five Crowns - Planning Commission 9/17/26 Agenda Item 4
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
September 16, 2026
XI. Conditional Non-Opposition and Reservation of Rights Petitioners conditionally do not oppose Resolution No. PC2026-027 if it is revised to make clear that PA2023-0202, Resolution No. 2025-18, and operations conducted under them are void ab initio, or at minimum void and without legal force or effect for any future baseline or entitlement purpose, and cannot be used directly or indirectly as any future baseline or evidence of lawful existing use, including in the pending CUP / PA2025-0208.
If the Planning Commission adopts the resolution without the requested clarifying language, Petitioners object and reserve all rights to argue that the resolution is incomplete, ambiguous, and insufficient to moot the pending writ issues or prevent use of the surrendered Temporary Permit as an improper baseline for P A2025-0208.
Petitioners also reserve all rights to appeal, seek call for review, supplement the Superior Court record, oppose any mootness stipulation that lacks adequate protections, and pursue all remedies necessary to prevent the surrendered Temporary Permit from being used to support P A2025-0208 or any future approval.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth J. Catanzarite
Catanzarite - Five Crowns - Planning Commission 9/17/26 Agenda Item 4