Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Council approves MacArthur Court development agreement; debate on off-site affordable units and density

November 19, 2025 | Newport Beach City, Orange County, California


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

Council approves MacArthur Court development agreement; debate on off-site affordable units and density
The City Council on Nov. 18 voted unanimously to approve Ordinance No. 2025-36 and Resolution No. 2025-80, authorizing a development agreement and voluntary Affordable Housing Implementation Plan for a proposed MacArthur Court mixed-use campus near the airport area.

Principal planner Liz Westmoreland told the council the proposal covers five parcels and would vest rights for 700 residential units and 10,000 square feet of retail or restaurant space over a 10-year term. As presented, the applicant (the Irvine Company) proposed off-site provision of affordable housing at 7% of market-rate units, which would amount to 49 affordable units if the full 700 units are built. Westmoreland said the agreement also includes a $3.25 million MacArthur Boulevard revitalization fee and a $17,000 per-unit public benefit fee for units not built on or after July 1, 2028; water supply assessments had been approved by the Irvine Ranch Water District.

Shauna Schaffner, principal for the applicant's planning team, said the company supported the staff recommendations and asked the council to approve the amended resolution consistent with the development agreement. Public commenters, including Adam Levins and Ron Rubino, criticized reliance on an off-site affordable housing plan and warned that in-lieu fees could make it cheaper for the applicant to pay rather than build units. Jim Mosier and others raised process concerns about timing and land-use designations. Mosier also raised questions about the site's density compared with prior housing-element assumptions and whether rights were being vested before certain land-use steps were complete.

Council members said they had engaged with state housing requirements and planning analysis while balancing local concerns. After discussion, Council Member Ball moved to approve the staff recommendation as amended; the motion passed unanimously.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep California articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI
Family Portal
Family Portal