San Clemente council approves height exemption for outlet hotel; rooftop restaurant cleared with limits after heated public hearing

The San Clemente City Council approved a zoning amendment and a related permitting action on Sept. 16 that will allow a hotel at the San Clemente Outlets to be taller than the base specific‑plan limit and to include a rooftop dining area, after weeks of review and a lengthy public hearing.

The council voted unanimously (5–0) to introduce and conduct first reading of ordinance 17 95 to amend the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan to permit a height exception that would allow the hotel identified as Building 15 to reach 55 feet to the plate line and 62 feet to the highest projection. On a separate vote the council approved the project permit and certified Addendum Number 6 to the 1998 Final Environmental Impact Report; that action passed on a 4–1 vote, with Councilmember Mike Wu dissenting.

City staff said the addendum, prepared by Aspen Environmental Group and dated September 2025, reviews the limited change and concludes the proposed increase would not produce new or more severe environmental impacts than those already analyzed in the 1998 EIR covering the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan. Adam Atamian, the city’s community development director, told the council the addendum found no new mitigation measures were required and that publicly designated view corridors would be preserved.

The permit approved by the council authorizes a hotel of roughly 120–130 rooms and a rooftop restaurant and dining deck. City planner Jonathan Lightfoot said the rooftop would include interior support areas (kitchen, restrooms, elevator) and an outdoor dining area on the western side of the roof closer to the coast; staff and the applicant said the rooftop would be closer to the coast and farther from the freeway than other hotel roof areas. Lightfoot reviewed conditions that remain in force from earlier approvals, including limits on hours for outdoor alcohol service and delivery times. Several of those conditions explicitly require that alcoholic beverages in outdoor dining areas be served only in conjunction with prepared food and that no outdoor alcohol consumption occur after 10 p.m. for Buildings 14–22 (the hotel is Building 15).

Architect Tim Fleming, speaking for Aubrey Cook Rogers McGill Architects and the project team, said the brand the developer is negotiating with requested a rooftop restaurant and that the design is intended to be a higher‑end hotel asset that could draw visitors and lodging revenue to the city. Fleming and the applicant said the proposal does not include amplified live entertainment at this time: if the owner applies later for amplified or extended entertainment, that would require a separate conditional‑use review.

Residents who live uphill from the outlets, particularly in the Marblehead/Mariposa/Del Acala areas, urged the council to require a supplemental environmental review, saying the 1998 EIR and earlier addenda do not analyze the effect of a 200‑seat outdoor rooftop bar 50 feet above homes that were not present in 1998. Speakers repeatedly raised concerns about potential noise and light intrusion, property‑value loss, and view obstruction. Laura Knapp, a Marblehead resident and former county attorney, told the council that even without amplification, the din from a busy restaurant or bar could be audible at night in homes and backyards.

Council members pressed staff on enforceable limits. Staff said the municipal code requires photometric plans showing fully shielded lighting and that standard building‑permit review will check fixtures; staff also described an acoustic review process that is triggered when amplified outdoor sound is proposed. The city’s code‑compliance and police units have existing enforcement powers, staff said, and the council may require additional conditions in the permit record.

Councilmember Mike Leffler asked that the project return to design review prior to final approvals; other council members said the specific plan amendment and project permit are the proper near‑term steps while additional operational restrictions could be enforced by condition. The record includes the previously adopted conditions from the site plan and use permits (1999 and 2004), including hours and noise mitigation measures issued with each phase of the outlets’ approvals.

Outcome and next steps: the council found the addendum appropriate under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164, introduced ordinance 17 95 to add the hotel to the specific‑plan height exception (first reading) and approved the PHP25‑343 project permit and associated amendments to commercial site plan permit 99‑16 / conditional use permit 99‑17. The permit approval incorporated multiple conditions of approval from earlier actions and added staff‑recommended conditions (e.g., requiring a photometric plan and enforcing existing limits on outdoor alcohol service). Staff will return with the formal ordinance adoption and the final project entitlement documents as required by the municipal code.

Council and staff emphasized that any future requests for amplified music or expanded hours would require separate discretionary review.

Ending: With the votes complete, the council directed staff to finalize the addendum record and to bring the permit documents and ordinance back for final adoption. The hotel applicant and outlet owner must meet the conditions of approval and building‑permit requirements before construction may begin.