Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All Alright. Good evening, and welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, 02/23/2026. I now call the meeting to order. It's time for the pledge of allegiance, and tonight will be led by commissioner Andrade.

Alright. Rise. Together.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Anna, will you please do the voice roll call?

Sorry, just one moment.

Sure.

Chair Harlan?

Here.

Vice Chair Zick?

Here.

Commissioner Rojas?

Here.

Commissioner Klepack? Here. Commissioner Andrade?

Here.

Commissioner Dixon? Here. Commissioner Martinez? Here.

We have no announcements or presentations this evening, which takes us to public comments for matters not listed on the agenda. Public comments will be heard at this time on items that are not listed on the agenda but are within our jurisdiction. I'll open public comment. If you'd like to speak, come to either podium. And if you're participating by Zoom, please use the raise hand option at the bottom of the screen. Or if you're joining by phone and would like to speak, please press 9. Give me one second. All right. Go ahead.

Hi. My name is Wendy Simo. I live across from a gym that doesn't have any insulation to keep their base in, as we all know. So I'd like to say that I literally don't eat beets or rice. If you gave them to me, I'd give them to somebody else because I don't eat them. But what I do not ever want to support in my life is slave labor. And if you bring people into a country and don't document them, like all the people are like, oh, we need those slave

we need the immigrants, the illegals to go work the fields. I don't believe that way. I think that the company that runs the fields should process the paperwork to bring that immigrant in, which

isn't that challenging, and it's really not that much money, so that that person gets proper wages, you know, and they get looked for after. I think everybody in our country should be documented, 100%. But I support enforcing all civil matters, like the gym is a civil matter, as we all know. But I just I give up. Nobody wants to do anything, so I just give up.

I mean, I got a neighbor that wants to get their roof done. I gotta call the cops on a Sunday because it's eight, 09:00 in the morning, and there's pounding, you know, against the law. Thank you for making that against the law to do construction in the city of Costa Mesa so we could just escort them away for the day so we got a nice quiet quiet Sunday. So, I mean, if you guys could, you know, fix the regulations so that no community has to go through what our community has to go through, it'd be great. Have a great day.

You. Anyone else in chambers wish to speak? Anna, do we have anybody on Zoom?

Cynthia McDonald, you may provide your public comment.

Go ahead, McDonald.

Okay. Thank you. Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa resident. Next week, the city begins another round of outreach meetings for the Measure K rezoning process. Yet none of the scheduled meetings appears to be a true town hall.

Instead, they resemble the same tightly controlled presentations the city has been using for months, events that limit meaningful dialogue and provide little substantive information. If the city is unable or unwilling to do better, if it cannot host a genuine town hall where residents can hear complete information, ask real questions, and receive clear answers, then it should stop spending taxpayer money on what amounts to a performative exercise. Residents are asking for an engagement process with substance, not scripted talking points or vague reassurances about a project that at this point appears to be deeply mismanaged. At the prior outreach meetings, very little meaningful information was provided and what information residents eventually received came only after public pressure on staff and the city's consultant. Even basic materials were missing.

There was no copy of the adopted housing element available for residents to review. None of the posters included information about RENA obligations. These omissions get the strong impression that critical information is being withheld from the public rather than shared transparently. It is reasonable to ask why should residents attend these meetings when there is so little to learn, and why should the public believe their input matters when it never appears to influence outcomes? To date, the city's outreach efforts deserve a failing grade.

That failure reflects a lack of leadership and direction. Even members of the city council have publicly expressed a desire for a town hall style meeting and yet city leadership has failed to deliver one. Finally, the city's policy of cutting off written public comments at noon is yet another indication that it is not genuinely interested in engaging or informing the public. This concern is reinforced by the fact that letters submitted by the Sagerstrom company were not made publicly available prior to the last planning commission meeting, even though they were received by both the planning department and the city staff well before the stated deadline. This inconsistent handling of public correspondence undermines transparency and erodes public trust.

When some communications are readily available while others are effectively hidden, it creates the appearance of preferential treatment and discourages meaningful public trans participation. At this point, the city's lack of transparency is no longer feels incidental. It's beginning to feel adversarial.

Thank you. And anybody else on Zoom or phone?

No. There's not, mister chairman.

Okay.

I will close public comments. Time for Planning Commissioner comments and suggestions, and I will start to my left with Commissioner Martinez.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Three events to announce. First, tomorrow, the community emergency response team kickoff will be at 6PM here at City Hall in the Community Room if you're interested in getting involved. And I believe the fire marshal will also be there.

Please, come on over tomorrow night. On Saturday, February 28, the All Abilities Resource Fair will be held at the senior center from 11AM to 1PM. Please go if you're interested in learning more about what resources are available from all different kinds of partners in our community and from the city. And then next week, the planning department is gonna continue the neighborhoods where we all belong, meetings and community outreach. I'm sure director Tai will speak more to those meetings during her report. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Dixon.

Thank you very much. And apologies for the informal attire and missing the last few meetings. I had surgery on my elbow, so I can't quite get into a long sleeve shirt yet. But, you know, to build on some of the public comments and the comments of Commissioner Martinez and I know I've been sort of a broken record on this before kind of the whole concept of city government, municipal government is to serve the people of that community. And there's other factors that weigh in.

There's state factors. And there's other requirements as well as we're run up against. But to kind of piggyback on some of the comments about the transparency, I would hope that we would make sure that we get any written comments received before the deadline of a particular public meeting to make sure that the public has access to those. I know we used to have them printed out in the back. I don't know if that's still the case.

But think that that was, for whatever reason, that we need to make sure that doesn't happen again. And as far as the outreach that goes, it's an age old question that's been going on forever. I did get a postcard, which I was very excited about, Martina showed a printout of it as well. However, there's not a lot of information on here unless you scan it. Let's refine the plan. What plan? I just think that when people see something like this, they might think it's, you know, it's not as important as it actually is. And they may not come down. Another issue I'd like to see addressed is in city communications, we have an email that goes out, the City Hall Snapshot, which is a great e mail. It's got a lot of a great amount of information in there.

But it goes out on a Friday, and it doesn't contain any information about the public meetings for the next week or what may be This last city all shot did have essentially this information with a little bit more information. So that was very helpful. And there was also other information about other efforts the city is trying to go through. But, you know, I think we're seeing a lack of compared to what we had in the past, if you go back and look at some of the meetings that we had regarding planning efforts for the West Side or for the city in general, there would be hundreds of residents in attendance. And these were town halls.

So I echo that comment about the town hall. And I know that's something the city has to arrange and come up with space and staffing and all that stuff. So it's not as simple as just holding one. But I would encourage more efforts like that, that we have as much information going out to the public as possible about these extraordinarily important land use issues. At our last meeting, which I attended by Zoom, we've discussed some pretty heavy issues in these meetings and some plans we're gonna send them to the city council that will be reviewed there as well.

But we just didn't have enough public engagement. And there's nothing the city can do to force people to come down here. It's not like we're gonna send the police out to your house and drag you down here to get your opinion. But the more that we can do to make people aware of exactly what's going on and the implications of these revisions and plans would be extraordinarily helpful. So those are my comments for tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Rovos, any comments? No comments. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Klepek?

None for me.

Commissioner Andrade?

Yeah. I'll echo the opportunity to provide an open setting. I think we did have a one town hall session here in the chambers, and I thought that was effective to kind of open up the floor for folks to provide feedback. So maybe turning one of these opportunities into allowing some space for folks to raise their concerns and be able to provide their feedback, I think, would be helpful as opposed to the interactive activities that we've seen. Just carving out some public time would be great.

Thank you. Vice Chair Zik?

Nothing.

Okay. Nothing for me. That takes us to the consent calendar. We have one item on the consent calendar tonight, and unless anything has been pulled.

No, there has not been, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay, let's do we have a motion for consent calendar item number one, the minutes of 02/09/2026? Motion?

Move approval of the consent calendar. Second.

Okay, motion by Dixon, seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Let's call for the question.

That motion carries seven-zero.

All right, we have three public hearing items tonight. Before we get started, I'll actually make the motion. I'd like to consider moving public hearing item number one to the end so we can address the applicant items first and then deal with the city initiated action. Do I have a second for that?

Pushing the button.

Okay, motion by the chair, seconded by Commissioner Dixon. Let's call for the question.

That motion carries six-one with Commissioner Martinez voting no.

Okay. Would you please read the title for public hearing item number two?

Public hearing item number two minor conditional use permit PMCP-twenty Six-three to amend conditional use permit PA-twenty One-thirty six to modify hours of operation, remove the requirement for a twenty four hour security guard, and conduct a six month review for four twenty native garden retail cannabis storefront located at 167 Cabrillo Street. Please note we have received public comments on this item. This is a call for any ex parte communications.

Commissioners, ex parte communications to report?

Just visited the site.

Okay. All right, I will turn it over to Mr. Villalobos to present the item.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Gabriel Villalobos. I am an assistant planner with the Development Services Department, and tonight I am presenting my findings for application PMCP 26 six-three which is a request for an amendment to conditions of approval for the business named four twenty native garden located at 167 Capriollo Street as well as a six month review of business operations. The conditional use permit for the subject property was originally approved by the Planning Commission on 02/27/2023 through Planning Application 20 one-thirty four. As part of the CUP approval, project specific conditions of approval were imposed including a requirement for a six month review by planning commission after opening, limited hours of operation, and a requirement for 20 fourseven on-site security.

The intention of the six month review is to determine if any impacts to the immediate area arose during the business operations since opening to the public. These impacts would include things such as parking, circulation, and noise, which were reviewed to determine the compatibility of the business with the surrounding neighborhood. A cannabis business permit was issued on 03/05/2025, for the business and operations commenced soon afterwards. In addition to this required six month review, the applicant has elected to apply for a minor conditional use permit to amend certain conditions of approval imposed by the approved CUP. Staff has incorporated the requested amendment into the six month analysis for this Subject property is located on the Southeastern corner of the intersection of Cabrillo Street and Fullerton Avenue.

The property is owned commercially and is surrounded by both commercial and residential uses. The minor conditional use permit application seeks to modify operational conditions of approval numbers one through three to make the changes shown on the slide above. Current hours of operation are allowed from nine a. To eight p. M. Unlike many other cannabis storefronts within the city which are allowed to operate between seven a. M. And ten p. M. The requested change would allow the applicant for 20 to maintain the same hours as other approved cannabis storefronts within the city limiting both the hours the business is open to the public as well as product deliveries to the site to only during those business hours.

In addition, a modification to the city's requirement for 20 fourseven secondurity personnel was previously amended through ordinance number twenty twenty four-four which updated the provisions of title nine the section of the city's municipal code which governs cannabis businesses to recommend 20 fourseven secondurity personnel on but no longer require it. The requested condition modification would revise language which requires security personnel at all times to only during business hours and when staff are present on-site. Staff reviewed police department calls for service from March 2025 to December 2025 to determine if a substantial number of calls were received in relation to this business. In total, seven calls of service were logged, three of which were self initiated by the police department. Those called in by the public were mostly alarm activations with only one traffic collision reported.

In addition, staff visited the site multiple times as required through condition of approval six to determine if any traffic or circulation issues could be noticed in the immediate vicinity during normal and peak business hours. Staff visited the site on various dates in the morning, afternoon, evening, and weekends and observed minimal to no parking or circulation issues in the area. This in combination with the lack of calls for service or code case violations leads staff to believe that the business has operated in conformance with those conditions and has maintained neighborhood compatibility. In conclusion, staff has determined that there was no substantial volume in calls for service within the short time the business has been in operation the calls for service law provided by the police department has been included as an attachment to the report provided to the commission for reference of the calls logged within the last year staff believes that the calls would not warrant any imposition of stricter conditions on There have been no noise complaints and only one code violation log at the property which has since been resolved. Staff also believes that the requested modifications to the conditions for extended hours of operation and a revision to security personnel would not likely cause any undue burdens to the neighborhood as the business is mostly low volume with quick turnover and sufficient policies in place to maintain a good relationship with the local residents and businesses.

As such, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, approve minor conditional use permit PMCP26003, and find that the operations during this initial six month review period have been consistent with the project's conditions of approval, have not resulted in issues related to neighborhood compatibility, and receive and file the review. That concludes staff presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Villalobos. Commissioners, any questions of staff? I see Vice Chair Zick.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Villalobos. As part of this MCUP application, was the applicant required to pay a fee associated with that?

Yes. Applicant was required to pay the processing fee for the minor condition use permit application.

How much was that?

I'm not sure what the exact dollar amount is, but I believe it's around $3,800

$3,800

Yes. Okay.

Had the applicant been content with their current operating hours and content with the current requirement for security twenty four seven, this would have simply been a six month review. They would not have had to pay for that. Correct? Correct. Thank you.

Alright. Any other? Commissioner Martinez.

Just a follow-up on the vice chair's questions. During the six month reviews, my understanding of previous six month reviews has been those would be the opportunities to make any changes if we found any changes to be necessary. So if the applicant had not applied for an MCUP, would we still have been able to make changes to the conditions of approval?

Only if deemed necessary for neighborhood compatibility. So if it was determined through the review or analysis that there were substantial impacts needed to be addressed through approval, at that point the Commission would have had the ability to review that and discuss it further.

Commissioner Dixon.

Thank you. How many other dispensaries currently operating are subject to those hours that this one is?

Through my review, every other cannabis storefront that's currently operating within the city have all been conditioned to have just the municipal code required hours of operation from seven a. M. To ten p. M. This was the only project that was specifically conditioned to have more stricter hours of operation simply because of the location and proximity to residential

properties. Thank you.

Any other questions, commissioners? Okay, I will open the public hearing and ask whether the applicant or applicant's representative is present.

Yes, commissioner.

Alright.

Christopher Blue on behalf of four twenty Native Garden.

Give me one second. Sorry. Alright, And I'll ask you the key questions. Have you read the staff report and conditions of approval? And do you agree to them?

Yes. We agree to them, and we have read the conditions of approval as amended.

Okay. Floor is yours.

Sure. And I just save everybody a lot of time. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer those. But our presentation is really just echoing the sentiments of mister Villalobos who did a great job in just conveying what our thoughts are with regards to the hours of operation and the security. One of our contiguous neighbors Lorraine wrote a detailed letter on behalf of the two specific tenants that live on the property with us to share the property. She indicated she was a little concerned because there was a little vagueness about what security element was because she really appreciates that security. I picked up my phone and called her, made sure she understand what the modification was and she was very comfortable with the overnight element being removed.

Thank you commissioners. Any questions of the applicant? No? Okay, sit down if you'd like.

Thank you.

All right, I'll open public comments. If you'd like to speak, please come to either podium. If you're joining by Zoom, please use the raise hand option. If you're joining the meeting by phone, please press 9. All right, go ahead, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Through the chair, commissioners, just as was predicted, big nothing burger, much ado about nothing back then, on one hand I get some of the concerns, on the other hand for me this was always known and knowable. I would ask you to celebrate the fact that this property has been magnificently improved. If you remember what it used to be, it used to be a spa center with spas piled high. I hadn't seen so much of a bucket of paint in the last two decades. This This is a beautiful elegant space.

It really disappoints me that we had to be here to hear that they had to pay $3,800 Let's go back in time for why that security guard was removed. It was at the unanimous vote of city council it was intentional okay you're going make all those other businesses come back and spend $3,800 to remove that when it was specifically intended by city council to do that I need you to ask staff and the city attorney if that's their intent. And when you hear that it is, I need you to do something. We need to be more business friendly. Please don't tell me, well, I'm just a commissioner.

Okay? I think I'm more effective than the commission at these things and I'm not a commissioner. We need to be more business friendly here. You need to apologize for having to do this. I would suggest you entertain a motion to refund the $3,800 You really need to clarify that all these other businesses are not subject to having to spend $3,800 to put that big watermelon in the garden hose here of the staff being efficient with their time. We need to think better, do better, act better. Let's make it start here tonight. Let's come together as a commission and demonstrate to business that you're listening. You're trying to be solution oriented. And when you hear a problem, you are the solution.

Please. This is happening on your watch. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else in chambers wish to speak? Anna, do we have anybody on Zoom or phone?

No. We do not, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. I will close public comment portion of the public hearing. Commissioners any further questions of staff? Commissioner Dixon.

Thanks and so in the existing conditions of approval there was condition of approval number four which talked about any change in the operational characteristics of the use shall be subject to planning division review and may require an amendment to the conditional use permit subject to either zoning administrator or planning commission approval depending on the nature of the proposed change. It's when there's when sort of the and I understand there's a lot of conditional use permits in the city that things change over the years. And in something like this, where there's sort of a direction from council that may impact other businesses that are currently permitted, What can you use an existing condition of approval, such as condition of approval number four, which is on page two twenty of this agenda packet? How can we to address former Commissioner Fitzpatrick's comments, is there a way to economize this process so that we can and it may just be that the way that our code is written, we have to have a hearing. But I just wanted to get some thoughts from the director or from staff on that.

So in this instance, there's

a couple of different conditions being modified, or what's I think important to talk about. The modification to the business hours, they were specifically set previously by the Planning Commission. So when staff reviewed it, we felt that it was warranted that that review come back to the Planning Commission as part of six month review with the six month review. The part about the conditions for overnight or twenty four hour security that now has been amended with the municipal code at the time, we weren't provided direction or the municipal code, so the conditions do stand that were within the conditions of approval. However, I think there is the opportunity for staff to review those types of conditions moving forward.

But in this instance, because there were a couple of different conditions in different instances, not just created by the code modification, project came back for conditional use permit amendment.

Great. And just to prevent however many more hearings we're going have on that one particular, the security guard issue, and the related expense to the applicants, do you have any comment on that, Director Tigher? Is that going to come as a piecemeal, is that something council has to initiate, or in order to just prevent a whole bunch of hearings to amend that particular condition? Or is that something that could be done administratively?

Yeah. So unfortunately, typically the way a policy change like this would happen is that at the time that a code change, for example, like the security requirement, if that's updated to reflect a more relaxed position or a less onerous position, there would need to be some sort of a policy statement that accompanies the adopting documents that applies it to every instance of an entitlement where it occurs. In this case, it does not look like that was the case. And when that happens, it means that every specific project description for an entitlement, every specific condition of approval for an entitlement stands until such time that the applicant applies to update it. So that's how the security guard situation would be treated here.

And I wanted to add a little bit more to planning manager Karoun's answer about condition number four. Typically, a general condition that talks about any change in operational characteristics would be subject to review and amendment. It refers to expansions. It's not typically assumed that staff would have the ability to grant expansions on a staff level if a business wishes for that, unless at the time of a public hearing, if there were environmental or situational or geographical aspect where there was hesitancy on the deciding body on the commission's part to say, well, maybe we operate at a certain number of hours for six months or a year and see how it goes. And if at such time later on there are no problems, then we grant staff the ability to expand.

But that would be articulated in a specific condition. And that would have given staff an ability for an administrative change with set criteria. But this condition was meant to anticipate for any general change, and that's what you're seeing before you tonight. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And then if we wanted to request that staff provide you know, reach out to counsel for something along, seek clarification on that, or see if they want to have some just because I'm thinking of it, this could be a tremendous amount of burden on staff and on the applicants as well if every single one of those who wants to change the security guard requirements has to come up with a $3,800 and a public hearing. I'm just curious how we can request clarification from counsel, what the procedure for that would be. Do we reach out to members individually and ask them to do it on the agenda? How does that work?

In terms of answering that question, the first thing I would want to do is take a look at how many requests we have now, number one. Number two, we would want to take a look at, of all the approved requests, how many of them have that condition already on there. Then from there, decide whether this rises to the level of a policy conversation that has to be presented to counsel. And so we go from there. But I think I'd want to do some fact gathering. I just don't think I have that information before me right now.

Thank you very much. I would encourage staff to do that. It'll head off a lot of hearings, if what's the numbers look like.

Of course. Thank you.

Director Tide, just following up on that, you mentioned that you need some additional information to determine whether or not this is a policy directive. What would be the alternative? Because I'm thinking that the commission may want to just simply make a motion to request counsel reconsider this as it applied to all cannabis applications.

I'm trying to think of the mechanism to do that for a planning commission initiated. I mean, we can communicate that through we can communicate that to the counsel just through regular communications and seek a response.

I don't want get ahead of myself, but I'm getting a sense that there's maybe an appetite on the commission to be a little bit more clear about our position on that. Sure. Okay. Any other questions of staff? Vice Chair Zick, you

I'll comment in a moment.

Okay. I'll close the public hearing now. Anybody like to make a motion? Okay. Commissioner Dixon.

I will move that the Planning Commission find actually make sure I have the right one. I'll move that the Planning Commission find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines section 15,301 for existing facilities, and that we approve the minor conditional use permit PMCP-twenty six-three based on the findings of fact and subject conditions of approval, and find that the operations during the initial six month review period have been consistent with the project's conditions of approval, have not resulted in issues related to neighborhood compatibility, and receive and file the review.

Okay. And seconded by Commissioner Vice Chair Zick. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes. I think that this is a common sense amendment. And I think that, you know, I haven't I didn't have any ex parte communications with the operators. But I've had opportunity to be in that area. And every time I'm over there, it's very clean. It's never there's never people spilling out of the thing. There's never people loitering. The grounds are perfect. But most importantly, we received a number of public comments from neighbors and people who are directly impacted. And they are all very complementary of the business and how the business has helped and communicated and helped the neighborhood. So we'd like to encourage well run businesses in our town and give them every opportunity to thrive. So I think that this is common sense. And that's my motion.

Okay. Vice Chair Zwick.

Thank you. Of course, I support the motion. We're here because of a six month review regardless of whether an MCUP application had been submitted. And for anyone that had watched the February 2023 approval of this item would know that the reason why it was a split decision was because of concern for the residential neighbors and one of the conditions which was modified specifically because of that concern were the hours of operation. Whether or not it was articulated in such a way as a condition so that some administrator later could interpret that as having been satisfied and then expand the hours consistent with every other retail cannabis shop.

Maybe that's an unfortunate interpretation. The fact that the applicant had to pay $3,800 to come back and ask for that is unfortunate. I don't think we have the authority here to order a reimbursement of that. I suspect counsel does. If counsel were to pull this item up for review, which I would recommend so they can address a couple of items, that would give them an opportunity to do that.

You're not asking for it, but I think if they called it up for review and if you communicated to them so that maybe it would help facilitate that, you might get that addressed. I think a reason why counsel ought to be reviewing this item is specifically to address the common sense implementation of the removal of the twenty fourseven secondurity guard requirement and instead, as would be consistent with our municipal code now, have it be simply a requirement during operating hours. You may recall, maybe not, that when we first started approving retail cannabis businesses in the city, security also had to be armed. When we remove that requirement, previously approved applicants had to come back and ask to have that removed. It's an administrative burden to have to do that.

This should simply be granted automatically without applicants having to pay a fee and apply for a minor conditional use approval. You've been a great business. Support letters that we've received, I think, validate that. I have no problem at all with your expanded hours. I have no problem at all with the change in your requirement. I think we have a larger issue here. We can't solve it. Council has to. And so I recommend that somebody at council who might be listening call this up for review and do the right thing for the business community. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Martinez.

Thank you. I agree with the maker of the motion and the second that when we're doing these municipal code changes and we end up changing things that are in our conditions of approval, this whole entire process is just drawn out. Because of this, I would definitely encourage staff with future conditions of approval to refer to our municipal code rather than specifically setting out what is in our municipal code in the conditions of approval. That way we can say in the conditions the business shall follow the hours of operation as required in CMMC section whatever. And you can do that for all of our different sections.

I know there's been a few times up here that we've talked about noise requirements, and then we might throw in some noise requirements into the conditions of approval. If they're exactly what's in our municipal code, let's just refer to the municipal code. That way, as the municipal code is amended, so are all of the conditions of approval, and we don't have to do this process for every single business where we just throw in all these different sections that we've already addressed well, that the council has already addressed. I think this is also an example of how the six month review requirements are probably not the best. I've made this point before, but I think especially this time with the answer that even if we had gotten this six month review, we wouldn't have been able to change it as the applicant is requesting.

Apparently we can only change it in specified ways. So six month reviews, I don't know if we should continue that practice here on the commission. And now specific to this application, good job. I see all the positive public comments, and I will be supporting the motion.

Any final comments, commissioners? Alright. Let's call for the question.

That motion carries seven zero.

That decision is final unless appealed to the city council within seven days. Right. Anna, will you please read the title for public hearing item number three.

Public hearing item number three call for review of the approval of special use permit PGSHDash24Dash02 to allow a sober living home with six or fewer residents to be located at 1601 Baker Street. Please note we have received public comments on this item. This is a call for any ex parte communications.

Commissioners, any ex parte communications to report? Commissioner Andrade?

Visited the site.

Okay.

Yep, same.

Okay.

All right, I will turn it over to Mr. Mendez to present the item.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. The item before you tonight is a call for review of the approval of a special use permit to allow a sober living home with six or fewer residents and one living house manager. The applicant is George Villegut on behalf of Step House Recovery. The applicant has filed a special use permit for proposed sober living home, which will accommodate six recovery residents and one living house manager located on Baker Street between Andro Street and Royal Palm Drive. It's a one story, 2,500 square foot single family residence situated on a point 16 acre lot.

The site is zoned R1 single family residential with a low density residential designation. It's surrounded by single family homes on three sides as well as to the north across Baker Street. This is a zoomed in floor plan of the residents. There will be a maximum of seven beds, six for the residents and one for the house manager. Most of the bedrooms are located on the eastern portion of the house, with the living room on the south side, the kitchen and dining room in the center, and a rec room at the rear of the home.

This is an existing exterior elevation of the property looking south towards Baker Street. The project meets all the applicable zoning standards, including occupancy limits and the prohibition on group homes and accessory units. Parking requirements are satisfied with five on-site spaces. There are no other similar recovery facilities within six fifty feet, maintaining the required separation. All necessary documentation, including intake procedures and the relapse policy, have been provided in compliance with CodeSemesis Code Section thirteen-three 11.

Additionally, conditions of approval have been incorporated into this permit in regards to public safety requirements and adherence to the ordinance standards. As part of the city's operational standards for group homes, operators are required to follow a good neighbor policy which helps ensure that residents and staff are respectful of the surrounding community. Group homes must also prohibit any use of drugs or alcohol on-site and maintain clear parking and visitation policies to limit any potential neighborhood impacts. I' also like to briefly explain how group home regulations apply under the municipal code. State licensed group homes that serve up to six residents are exempt from local regulation so they don' require city approval.

In contrast, unlicensed group homes with up to six residents located in residential zones must obtain a special use permit in accordance with Title 13 Chapter 15 of the municipal code. It's a ministerial process staff's role is limited to verifying whether the application conforms to the ordinance not making discretionary judgments. The special use permit is issued by the director of economic and development services as a ministerial permit. This means the Director's review is focused solely on verifying that the facility meets the adopted location and operational standards. Because it is a ministerial review, it's limited to objective standards rather than a subjective evaluation.

By way of background, on 10/23/2025, the city's hearing officer considered the special use permit to allow a sober living home with six or fewer residents and one house manager. The purpose of the hearing was to receive information and testimony regarding the applicant's compliance with the objective standards. As part of the hearing officer's decision and consideration, a total of 14 public comments were received. The primary concerns were impact to quality of life, proximity to residential care facility, advertising practices, overcrowding and parking congestion, personal and property safety, and noise. On January 5, the city's hearing officer approved the special use permit and concluded that the application is in compliance with COSMSA submissive code section thirteen-three 11 and no grounds for denial were determined.

Two days later, Mayor Stevens submitted a timely application for review of the approval pursuant to Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section two-three zero two. Mayor Stevens listed concerns regarding impacts to neighborhood of sober living home operations. As a de novo hearing, the Planning Commission may consider new evidence. However, the Commission's review is limited to determining whether the applicant complies or has agreed to comply with the objective standards set forth in subsections A and B of Section thirteen-three 11. Pursuant to code, public notification were mailed and published no less than ten days prior to the date of the public hearing.

As the date of the report, no in public comments have been received. However, we did receive seven, not six, commission public comments prior to the noon deadline today and were provided separately. The planning commission may take the following actions they could uphold the hearing officers decision or determine that the application does not meet the requirements of section thirteen-three 11 and deny the permit. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to find that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA and to uphold the hearing officers issuance of the special use permit. This concludes staff presentation.

Staff and the applicant are available for any questions.

Thank you Mr. Mendez. Commissioners, any questions of staff? Vice chair zik

thank you thank you mister mendez first question the hearing officer is that a city employee or a third party

third party

is that individual here tonight No. Okay. Second question, the SUP was approved January 5. You indicated that the appeal was January 7, two days later. Based on that, I'm assuming that this Soper Living Home is not currently operating. Am I correct?

That's correct.

Okay. And the appeal letter from well, it's from the mayor. It doesn't really matter who it was from. But the appeal letter simply says, review of impacts to neighborhood. But as you indicated, this is a de novo hearing, we can consider all aspects of the application. Correct?

Councilmember sorry. Commissioner Zick, if I can answer that question. The review for the de novo appeal I mean, it's a de novo review, which means it's afresh. But the Planning Commission's review is limited to whether or not the applicant complies. You can consider new evidence that may be introduced prior to the appeal or in connection to the appeal. But the review of the evidence is limited to what was stated in the application and what is raised on the appeal.

Thank you. I think my question was inarticulate. What I meant to ask or point out is that our review is not limited to this question of whether there's an impact to the neighborhood or not.

No, the review is limited to whether or not the applicant complies with the provisions of 13.311 of the municipal code.

Got it. Thank you. Okay. I will say, Mr. Mendez, when I went through this package, I found it a little bit challenging.

And I'll just tell you that. I'll point out a couple of ways in which I found it to be challenging to review this so that maybe in the future it won't be so challenging. The one thing that I've found helpful and staff has begun doing this again over the last several months is numbering every page in the package consecutively from beginning to end, regardless of the attachments. And I find that to be helpful so that if somebody says I'm referring to page four seventy three, everybody can find it rather quickly. That having been said, there were references to attachments that I found a bit cumbersome.

And for example, attachment number one, which is titled the resolution, is found on page two forty five. There is another attachment that is also labeled number one on page two fifty three. It's not a duplicate. It's simply another reference to attachment one. So in the staff report, when there are references to attachments, that could be a bit ambiguous.

The same thing happens with attachment number five, which is the step house letter starting on page two sixty three. But there's another reference to attachment five, which is the public comment starting on page four thirty two. And, similarly, the drawings at the very end of the package are identified as attachment six, whereas the policy and procedures of STEP House are also identified as attachment six starting on page three thirty four. So just from a bookkeeping standpoint, I found it challenging to go through and make references and refer to different things throughout the report. So as best as I can with my questions, I'll refer to the page number.

And I'll start with page number two thirty two. And I'm not sure if this is a question for you or for legal, but between the two of you, I know you'll get me an answer. I've been under the understanding that there's been a tremendous amount of work in response to community concerns over the past number of years, maybe a dozen years, I'm not even sure how long, relative to separation distances between facilities. I'll refer to it generically facilities because that's the nature of my question. At the bottom of page two thirty two, under the code requirement column, it indicates the six fifty foot separation from another sober living home or a state licensed facility.

But in the first column, it puts maybe a finer point on that. And it says, or state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility. So does this separation requirement apply if there is a licensed facility, a state licensed facility, even though a state licensed facility doesn't require a municipal approval

that's correct so it applies to both unlicensed and state licensed facilities

so is the facility next door door what fifteen ninety seven is that a state licensed facility?

That is a residential care facility. That's different from a sober living group home.

Understand that. Is it a state licensed facility?

It is.

It is a state licensed facility.

Commissioner Zayk, if I can I can clarify? Municipal code specifies both from another drug and alcohol treatment facility, a state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, or another sober living facility. That is a six fifty foot separation requirement. There are many different types of state licensed facilities. The only ones in the municipal code for a SUP conflict for a sober living home is a state licensed smart health care services licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility.

Got it. And thank you for that. Okay. So starting on page two thirty four of the staff report and I found this to be very helpful you delineate the applicable standards of Section thirteen-three 11 A and B, A going one through 14 and B going one through whatever. So for the next several pages, you identify that.

And so I looked through each of these items to satisfy myself that I saw no difference between the determination that had been made and what I find in the package. So for example, the very first item under A, an application has to be submitted. You received an application. The applicant is compliant from that standpoint. It doesn't say anything about the quality of the application.

It's just, in that case, they submitted one. And that's what matters. I then was curious about, on the next page, Roman numeral four, that says name, address, phone number, driver's license of the house manager. Do you have that?

I do. I do.

Okay. And anytime that changes, they have to update you with new information. Correct? Correct. Okay. The next item says a copy of the group home rules and regulations. So those are in the package, so I know you have those. My question though is, do we have any criteria about what those rules and regulations must include? Or do they just have to have some document titled rules and regulations and have some verbiage.

The code doesn't specify those details. Okay?

On the next page, page two thirty six, the top,

number four Sorry, Vice Chair. I'm so sorry. Actually, the rules and regulations are intended to reflect the extensive list of requirements that are in the staff report. And I'm just going to go give you a page range. But generally, page two thirty five through I'm scrolling two thirty nine.

So yeah, there's an extensive list of operational requirements that we would review the rules and regulations against to ensure that the rules and regulations contain all of the municipal code required operational criteria.

Thank you for that. Okay. Thank you. So then I'm on the top of page two thirty six, number four. Group home as a house manager who resides at the group home or any multiple of persons acting as a house manager who are present at the group home on a twenty four hour basis. The question about that is, if the house manager needs to run to the store, do they have to call for a substitute house manager to come to the house while they go to the store or dental appointment or visit friends or whatever they might want to leave for?

Well, my understanding is that they need to be there at a twenty four hour basis. I'm only aware of one manager. I'm not aware of any swapping of managers of any kind. So to answer your questions, I'm only aware of a twenty four hour basis that they need to be.

But we anticipate that the management would be on shifts and one manager at a time.

Yeah. So the regulation says the group home has a house manager who resides at the group home or any multiple of persons acting as a house manager who are present at the group home on a twenty four hour basis. So if somebody has to run to the store, I think they put somebody in place for that time being. But the intent of that regulation is that there is always somebody who is responsible for the day to day operation of the group home. And if somebody has to step out, there does need to be somebody in place to step in their place temporarily.

Got it. And the reason I asked that question is because a couple of pages later, there's a statement about the sober living home shall have a good neighbor policy, be considerate to neighbors, and that kind of thing. And I'm imagining maybe there's a situation where a neighbor might feel that's not being upheld, and they go to the front door and want to speak to the house manager to discuss or complain about a situation, the house manager a house manager would always have to be present. Correct? Correct.

I'm reading that correctly. Okay. Thank you. Garage and drive spaces driveway spaces shall be available for vehicle parking. I know we have a condition very similar to that for a number of housing developments, and in conjunction with those, there's conditions of approval to talk about an annual certification by the HOA that that condition exists. Meaning garages are empty and available for parking do we have some kind of language or verification to ensure that that that this provision is being met

Besides that they have met the standard, that's the provision that is being met for this type of permit.

So if somewhere down the road a neighbor observed that the garage was full of, let's say, exercise equipment Mhmm. And they were aware that the garage had to be empty and available for the parking of cars, what would be their recourse? What would be the neighbors recourse to point out that deficiency? And then what would be the city's response to that? First, what would be the neighbors recourse?

Before I answer that question, I want to be clear on the garage requirement. If we're looking at the code Thirteen-three 11 A 5.

Yep.

It talks about all garage and driveway spaces associated with the dwelling unit at all times be available for parking of vehicles. Yes. Residents and the house manager may each only store a vehicle or park at a single vehicle at the dwelling unit or on any street within 500 feet of the dwelling unit. So they have the option to also park on the street.

Understand that. But if they park on the street, that does not mean they can fill the garage with exercise equipment. Correct.

So again So I'd have to be free and clear so that garage spaces can be stored there.

Right. So I return to my question. Assume they fill the garage with a bunch of junk. I said exercise equipment. It could be anything. And the neighbor observes that because they're concerned about parking on their street and people parking in front of their house. So they see this as a problem, and they know what this municipal code requirement is. What is their recourse? Who do they complain to? How do they do it? And then the second part of that question is, what do we as a city do about it?

Yeah. I think the first recourse is the neighbor to approach the house manager.

If

the manager complies or if there's still issues, then the second recourse is to call code enforcement. And then code will go out there to verify those claims.

Okay. That's good enough. Okay. And I did note the rest of the paragraph that talks about the parking must be well, only one vehicle per person, including a house manager, and they have to be parked no greater than 500 feet away from the property. And I couldn't help but measure and see that 500 feet would take you all the way up to Royal Palm in one direction and all the way down practically to Andros on the other.

That's just on one side, both sides. So that's a fairly easy requirement to comply with. Whether people like somebody else in front of their house or not, it's a different question. Okay, the next number down, number six occupants must not require and operators must not provide care and supervision. I don't know what that means. I understand in layman's terms what care and supervision is. What does that mean in terms of this provision, this requirement on a sober living home? What are they not allowed to do? What does that mean, care and supervision.

I'd have to take a look back at the health and safety code to have a response.

Okay. If you make a note and come back to me with that answer at the end. The next

Commissioner Commissioner Zik, if I could

jump

in. Vice Chair Zik. So that is a reference to health and safety code that defines drug and alcohol treatment facilities and level of care that they receive, which would then require a state license. But Mr. Mendez can, of course, go back and read the definition and bring that back in a moment.

I got you. So if they were licensed, then they would be able to provide care and supervision. Am I understanding you correct?

If it was a state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, yes, they'd be licensed by the state to provide care and supervision within the meaning of the health and safety code. Got it. It would not be allowed to do those acts as an unlicensed sober living home.

Got it. Thank you, Mr. Pregnosi. Okay, the next item down. Integral group home facilities are not permitted. I don't know what that is. What is an integral group home facility? That's number seven in the middle of the page on 236.

Yeah, I think I'd have to double check, but I think what they're trying to attempt here is not having group homes within multiple group homes within a site?

Vice Chair Zick, there is a definition for integral facility in the zoning code. But in essence, without having the definition in front of me, in essence it prohibits having occupants in one residence or one facility receiving some type of care in an adjacent facility that would require a different level licensure?

I have the definition in front of me, if I could read that to you. Sure. Integral facilities, any combination of two or more group homes which may or may not be located on the same or contiguous parcels of land. Yeah.

Okay. Number nine on that same page, 236 says the property must be fully in compliance with all building codes municipal code and zoning I did not see anywhere in the package a letter determination from code enforcement that this property did in fact meet current building codes municipal code are you aware if this property has been inspected or not

it hasn't been inspected recently but this is in regards it doesn't say recent building codes, it's just in general building codes and municipal code and zoning. So from the way it sits now, was permitted with the development standards at that time.

You mean at the time the house was built?

Correct. We didn't see any subsequent I didn't see any additions or renovations after the fact.

Okay. And with all due respect, if somebody had been somewhere in the last fifty years done some rewiring in the house, I'll call it a homeowner special, I wouldn't expect that you would have necessarily observed that. So again, in terms of this requirement that the property must be in full compliance with the building codes, I'm asking if we have determined that.

We have. I don't think there's an expectation to tear off walls to verify?

I'm talking about a physical inspection that a building

No, there has not been a physical inspection.

Because we have this as a requirement in our municipal code, how is it that we effectuate compliance with this?

Based on the information that we have on files, the project complies with

code.

See, I'm trying to go through these requirements that we have because what we're saying is if these requirements are met at a ministerial level, an SU SUP would be approved. So I'm trying to go through these requirements to see if, in fact, they have been met. And and I'm trying to satisfy myself that the city has satisfied itself that each of these items has been met. So I'm not sure we've done that on that item then, based on your response. On the next page, two thirty seven, Roman numeral I or I under paragraph 11, it says that prior to an occupant's eviction from or involuntary termination of residence in the group home, the operator shall make available to the occupant transportation to the address listed on their driver's license, state issued identification card, or a permanent address, etcetera.

My question is, would a resident know this, that this right exists for their benefit?

Yes, so the applicant has agreed that this section would be disclosed to the resident.

Okay. Thank you. On the next page, two thirty eight, under well, so it would be a Roman numeral II. I don't if those are Roman numerals, maybe not. The first or the first sentence says, all occupants other than the house manager must be actively participating in legitimate recovery programs.

And then it goes on to say that there must be maintained current records of meeting attendance, etcetera. My question about that requirement is, are these records provided to the city, or are they auditable by the city? How do we know this requirement is going to be met by a group home by a sober living home? We require them to participate in legitimate recovery programs. How do we know that's going on?

So not and the city's around. So the house manager keeps record of this. There's an obligation for them to provide these records to the city.

Okay, I'll accept that. It doesn't exactly say that, but I'll accept that. In the next paragraph in the middle, it says, the facility cannot dispense medications but must make them available to the residents. And then it says, the possession or use of prescription medications is prohibited except for the person to whom they are prescribed and in the amount and dosage prescribed. So I'm a little unclear about this.

The facility cannot dispense the medications, but they must make them available to the residents. So would the facility stocks medications?

So it's my understanding from the previous hearing, the applicant has said there's no prescription of medication that's being described at this facility.

Vice Chair Sikh, if I might interrupt for a second. Just want to get an understanding of how long you have, because the other commissioners may have questions

You as

know what, I'd be happy to take a break. I've got the three more pages of the requirements that I'm continuing to show an interest in compliance.

Okay.

So I'll, take a break and let somebody else go. Okay.

Anybody else want to offer some questions or should we let Vice Chair Zik continue? Go ahead Commissioner Andrade.

Can you please expand if some of the public comments that we receive are concerns about the conflict between this facility's requirements to meet our code and then the requirements to meet a code of an adjacent location that's owned by Child Help USA. Can you maybe just elaborate on any conflicting requirements for each body?

So I just want to be clear that the adjacent neighborhood the adjacent Parcel 1597 Baker is a short term therapeutic program, meaning that it's a facility for child and non minor dependents. It's not considered a sober living home or a drug recovery facility. So when it comes to the six fifty foot buffer, that only applies between sober living homes and other similar sober living homes. A recovery facility doesn't qualify under that definition. And the sober living group home definition also excludes that a residential care facility should not be considered a sober living home.

So there is no concerns on the requirements that Child Health USA needs to meet by having this other facility close by?

There's no requirement between the two.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Any other questions from staff? All right, Vice Chair Zik, caught your breath?

I've only got a couple more.

Okay.

On page two thirty eight near the bottom, it says, the number of occupants subject to the sex offender registration requirements of the penal code does not exceed the limit set forth in the penal code. I didn't look that up. So presumably, this sober living home could also be housing a registered sex offender or more than one. And it also says in that same paragraph and doesn't violate the distance provisions set forth in the penal code section 3,003. I didn't look that up either.

I know there's school down the street. I don't know if this is within or outside of any distance requirement to a school. So could you clarify that?

Yeah. Again,

if we're approving an SUP for an operator, assuming they're compliant with all these different paragraphs, this is a paragraph we expect compliance with. I want to make sure I understand it.

Yeah, I would need to take a look at this penal code section. It's one of those requirements where it's the business is not in operation yet, right? So we can't really verify registration.

Okay. I accept that. Thank you. And then my last question on the next page, it talks about the owner operator or staff person has an employment history in which he or she was terminated during the past two years because of etcetera, etcetera. Does the city run background check of the owner operators, or do we require the them to provide these to the city? Again, how do we, the city, know that they're compliant with this requirement?

They would need to provide that. There's no background check that the city would do

so if we ask for it then they would have to provide it

correct

okay that's it thank you

okay oh Commissioner Dixon.

I just I just wanted to verify the staff report and the result of the hearing officer here where the allegations or the assertions that the facility has already been operating. Did the hearing officer hear testimony to that regard? And did the hearing officer make a finding upon that? Or was there any I didn't see a transcript in here. Maybe I missed it.

Yeah. So the hearing officer allowed the applicant to speak on that issue. The applicant confirmed that there weren't any that this type of facility wasn't being operated at the moment. He did say that there's tenants there renting the place, and that the tenants are aware of the application that is before us.

Okay. And then the public comment which submitted information regarding alleged registration with the county and things like that and advertising, etcetera, was that reviewed by the hearing officer? Is that new evidence, or is staff familiar with that evidence?

That was reviewed by the hearing officer in discussions with the applicant.

All right, thank you.

Okay, if there are no more questions of staff by the Commission, I will now open public comments. Open the public hearing and ask whether the applicant or applicant's representative is present. And I'll ask you to state your name for the record and then ask if you've read the conditions of approval and do you agree to them.

For the record, my name is Gary Hill. I'm here on behalf of my wife, Natalie Hill, and also our daughter, Natasha Hill. We are the owners of fifteen ninety eight Myrtlewood, a property directly bordering the property in question tonight.

Okay, I'm asking if you're the applicant's representative.

Oh, sorry, I'm not the applicant's representative. Please

have a seat then.

Okay, sorry.

Is the applicant's representative present? All right, so please state your names for the record and again the question, have you read the conditions of approval and do you agree to those?

Yes, I do. My name is Mary Wilcox. I am an independent contractor that works with Stepphouse Recovery, and I have not only read all of the information, but helped compile much of it. So I'm very familiar with the All right,

floor is yours.

So I heard a number of questions, and I think that it might be important for us to be able to speak on behalf of some of those. One of the most recent ones was on the background of the owner operator. And also, in conjunction with that, I would like to just sort of combine the other comment about sex offenders. Step House Recovery is a little bit unique in that we are a contractor with the County of Orange, the Orange County Health Care Agency. So the referrals that we receive, the clients that come to Stephouse Recovery, are vetted by the Orange County Health Care Agency.

They go through and are required to attend a detox program. And then they have to attend a rehabilitation program. We are part of what is called a residential recovery services program, in that then this is the final step in that and it depends on how long and the severity of their addiction that they would be in detox and rehab. The residential recovery services program is thirty or I'm sorry, ninety days. And, again, they are referred to us.

They are vetted by the county. We receive information on the individuals. We are told whether or not they are on probation or parole. We are told if they are on the sex offender registry, and we are given right of refusal for any of those. As policy, step house recovery does not take individuals who are on sex offender registries.

We believe in providing safety for the neighborhoods, and so we do not allow that. As a county contractor, Stubhouse Recovery is required to be licensed and vetted by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. So annually, the Orange County Sheriff's Department comes in. They do an inspection of the facilities. And they have a specific criteria that has to be met. And we have successfully met those criteria. I believe in the packet, have included the certificates from the sheriff's department. Again, that's done annually. In addition to that, we are under the oversight and purview of the Orange County Health Care Agency.

We have a program

officer and a I believe it's a contract officer. Each of those come to the site. In fact, we're preparing for a site visit next month. They visit us annually. They review our charts.

They review our sites. They also are very active in communicating with our clients. And they also require us not only to have a good neighbor policy, but they require that their contact information is on our good neighbor policy. So, if neighbor does have a dispute, the house manager does have that information and is required to give it to the neighbor. We also have one on one provider meetings regularly, quarterly with the County of Orange, where they do question us about our neighborhood compliance.

If they receive any complaints from our clients, they are very proactive in researching those and investigating those, getting to the bottom of that. So, we're not just over the oversight of the city, which we agreed to the many, you know, requests that you've had, but we already had a lot of protocols in place to meet those. But we also are now under the purview of the Orange County Health Care Agency.

Okay. Commissioners, any questions of the applicants? Vice Chair Zik?

Kind of lonely with questions. I looked at these certificates. And on page three ninety two of our staff report, I think there is one of these that you might be referring to. I'll just hold it up so you see what I'm looking at. I'm looking at a document like this.

Okay.

And on it, it indicates that it was issued September 2024, and it expires September 2025. Mhmm. So it's expired, so help me understand.

Well, when we had that the certificate done for Baker, we were under the hopeful impression that this would be done by that time. With the recent approval that we received in January, we have scheduled an appointment with the Orange County Sheriff's Department. They are actually coming out next Friday. Friday, the twenty seventh, to recertify the house.

Okay. And then I'm not quite sure how to ask this question because I don't know enough, so I'm going to fumble with it a bit. And it has to do with I'll the, call it the federal definition of the kinds of people that you're housing. And I'm going to use the term disabled, and I don't know if I'm using it in the proper context.

Yes, you would be. Okay.

Is the determination that they are disabled made by the Orange County Health Care Agency, or when somebody is referred to you, how do you know that they meet this criteria?

Well, our understanding under the contract that we have is that they have done the vetting. So they have put this individual through the paces that they have told us that they would. So, I suppose they're on their honor, in some ways, in that regard, because they do admit the individual to a detox program. And then, from there, they go to a treatment program. And then, from there, they come to us.

So, we have we don't keep medical records. So, we receive a very limited amount of information in terms of their entire health care. What I also can tell you, though, is that part of the program I know that you had asked a question about the meetings. Part of their ability to stay in this program, the county requires them to attend what we call intensive outpatient therapy. They're required to be enrolled in that right away.

And we assist them in making sure that they are enrolled. We also because we are a HIPAA compliant organization, we have to get a release of information from the client, allowing us to check-in with their IOP provider to ensure that they're attending. That is really and we're not allowed to refuse them services. But if we don't are not able to verify that they're in that program, then we have to discharge them because then we are out of compliance with our contract. In addition to that, they are also required to attend some other support meeting, either a narcotics anonymous or alcoholics anonymous program.

And those the clients are required to turn in a meeting log every month Week. Week. Sorry, every week. And the house manager is really the one who spends a lot of time verifying Most of these folks attend meetings together, so if somebody is not showing up to meeting and working their program, somebody knows.

Okay. So I have kind of a question to follow-up that, and then I'll close with one final question. It indicates here that the sober living home shall not provide any of the following, and I'll list a couple of things. And so it's my assumption that you don't provide detoxification, educational counseling, individual or group counseling, or recovery planning. But those things, maybe they get outside the group home. But you don't provide any of that, correct?

No, we are not. And we are not allowed to provide that. That does have to be acquired outside of So

if they come to your facility and they meet the criteria or definition of federal disability, when they move out, are they no longer disabled?

I don't believe that is the case. My understanding is that once you are defined under the Americans with Disability Act with a disability, you have a disability.

For life.

For life.

Okay. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Klepack. And then I'll get to you.

Hi. Can you clarify the policy of the House manager always being present or having somebody there 20 fourseven? So if the house manager needs to run up to CVS for something, is there somebody that's always in charge? They're not just kind of the head tenant?

Yes. So there is usually and because the house is not operating right now, and we vetted a couple of different individuals for the house manager position. But once we have that in operation, we usually identify a second in command, an individual that might be there as well. But I also have to point out that these individuals are required the county program requires them to be either employed in school or volunteering. So there should not be people loitering around the house during the day.

They should be out either looking for work, or they should be at an organization where they're volunteering. We do provide them with resources to volunteer. And then we also do have resources to help them enroll in school, if that's necessary.

Okay. And if the neighbors have a concern, but they don't feel comfortable going and knocking on the front door, do they proactively get contact information with the OC health care agency, or would they call city code enforcement?

So, my understanding and this is most of Step House Recovery's homes have been in existence for quite some time. So, this is something new for us, to have a new home in a new area like this. But typically, what we like to do is we like to send a letter out to the neighbors and let them know that we're here, and then let them have that contact information so that knocking on the door is not I mean, I don't know that I would feel comfortable, especially as a woman, knocking on a door where I know there's a house full of men. So our policy is and it is in our policies and procedures to send out a letter to the neighbors and say, hi, we're here. And this is our contact information, but the county also requires us to put their number on there too.

So if they don't like what we have to say, they can go over our heads. So we, unlike a lot of other sober living, we answer to somebody else. And so if somebody doesn't like what we're doing, they can tattle on us. Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Dixon. Thank you.

And I'm sure you've seen the public comments and you were part of the hearing officer Borgman. There are specific complaints and allegations about operations prior to now. And I've heard answer from staff and I've heard answer. And I understand that there are current residents there now, or there were tenants there now. And so I can assume and actually, I'd like to hear from you if the issues raised by some of the folks about some of the activities at that house would have been tied to those tenants or other folks.

And I know some of them couldn't necessarily be tied to the house because it was in the street or it was next door or whatever. But you have facilities in Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley. Do those have good neighbor policies as well? And if so, if you have a neighbor who is complaining about someone jumping over their fence or rolling down the street in a car that's whatever, they could call this number for the county or call the number for the home. And the procedures outlined in here as far as eviction and termination and all those things, would those apply?

Again, we have a number of very specific detailed complaints. And you've represented and the staff has represented that you have not been operating it as a sober living facility, which

I

think we heard a little disagreement from the crowd. And so I just wanted to get some assurance from you as far as this compliance with the thirteen thousand three eleven and the requirements within that your good neighbor policy A, you have not been operating because I see an A, we have a no person shall open a group home or begin employment with a group home until this information has been provided, and such person shall be responsible for updating any of this information or keep it current. So I believe the staff and the hearing officer were comfortable with the claim that you have not been operating.

Correct.

So could you just briefly go over how if you've had to use your good neighbor policy, if there have been complaints from neighbors in either of the other homes you've been doing, and how those are typically addressed?

So

we really don't get complaints. And know that that sounds I would imagine if someone said that to me, would say, come on. But honestly, I have been with Step House for almost three years now, And we have not received any neighbor complaints. We have the home that is off of Ellis in Fountain Valley. We have an excellent relationship with the neighbors.

We recently you know, have gone through an SUP with another home in Fountain Valley. The neighbors have been nothing but cordial, and we have not really had any issues. I do know that there were those comments about someone jumping over a fence. We have not been able to substantiate that those were, in fact, the tenants that were in the home at the time. But the thing that I think we need to kind of recognize is that in the event that something like that happened under the purview of the sober living, we have recourse to be able to discharge.

There are house rules. They sign. They understand they are living in a sober living facility. If we have someone who violates those rules, we can discharge them, and we can remove them from the residence. As a tenant, you've got somebody who's acting a little nuts. You don't really have that ability to just easily remove someone. And so I can't say that there was not a tenant that jumped over the fence. But what I can tell you is that we have not been able to substantiate those claims that they came from anyone who was living at the Baker House at the time that those happened.

All right. Thank you. If I could speak to something regarding what we call funding. Most of the clients that we have, about 95%, are funded through the county of health care agency. So that gives us and basically, there's such a high demand need for these folks that are disabled, that are suffering, they're sick and broken, that if someone's not complying, we will discharge. Whereas other entities that require, you know, private pay money or whatever they're getting, insurance money, which is illegal, by the way, to get insurance money for sober living. That was passed about five years ago. It's an FBI offense now. And it's still going on, unfortunately. So I get it.

You know, the body brokering, all the things that are going on out there are not necessarily on the up and up. There are bad actors. No question. In addition to that, as far as, like, neighbors, what I've noticed is sometimes you end up with people through social media now that don't even live in the neighborhood, let alone Costa Mesa. There are people that are rolled in from, you know, Dana Point, Alisa Viejo, wherever, and they're coming in and sitting in on these meetings, and they don't even live in the neighborhood, for God's sake.

So it goes both ways. But I'm here to say that we run a clean, tight ship. We have a dog in the race in terms of people that are not compliant. We will discharge. We we put them on contract right away. Zero tolerance. And and I personally will be involved with those discharge.

I think it's also important to note that the county actually only requires us to test these individuals once a month for the ninety days that they're there. Step House has a policy that we hold very close to, to test the individuals at least weekly. Anyone who violates curfew or violates any of the rules is also tested immediately.

All right. Thank you. Any further questions? Vice Chair Zwick?

A quick question. Will Step House be owning that property or leasing it?

Yes. No. George owns the home. This is Mr. Villegott. He owns the home.

I'm the owner.

And are you part of Step House's

I'm CEO for Step House, yes.

And it's your house?

It is, sir.

Got it. Thank you.

All right. I'll give you a chance to return if you want to respond to some questions at the end of the public hearing. Okay. All right, we'll now open it up to public comments. If you'd like to come speak on this item, please come to either podium. And if you're participating by Zoom, please use the raise hand option or if you're joining by phone, you can speak using star nine.

All right, at least this time I might have it right way around.

All right, go ahead sir.

So for the record, my name is Gary Hill. I'm here on behalf of my wife and daughter. We are the owners of 159 At Myrtlewood, which is directly adjacent to the property. I'm here as a deeply concerned homeowner and parent. The resident proposed has been to be converted into SOPA living.

Our daughter lives in the home adjacent to the property. Our backyards are direct boundaries. My daughter, who's 24 years old, whose bedroom is just a mere 30 feet from the property itself. It won't take much for somebody to climb over the back. So I respectfully affirm that we oppose this approval of the application.

While we recognize the importance of recovery programs and the value of helping individuals overcome addiction, we do not believe that this location in the middle of a single family residential neighbourhood is appropriate for such use. This property in that neighbourhood, which my wife actually grew up for most of her life, is zoned as a single family residential neighborhood, as you're all aware. The families have chosen to live there based on the expectation of that being a stable, low density family residential environment. And we my wife has grown up there. She's loved the neighborhood.

And our primary concern now is the safety and well-being of our daughter, who is now living in the home. And the families that live in this neighborhood. The proposed sober living home replaced multiple unrelated adults, adult residents directly adjacent to the backyard and our daughter's living space. The close proximity, shared fence line and lack of meaningful separation create a situation we find deeply unsettling and concerning as parents. We feel that the increased number of residents, the higher occupancy, additional visitors, potential for noise, relapse or behavioral issues could introduce risks that do not currently exist in the neighborhood.

The reality is that substance abuse and recovery is complex and unpredictable, and we certainly understand that as well. As parents, we cannot ignore the possibility of the safety concerns arising next door and fear for the safety of our daughter. This is about our daughter's daily living environment and our peace of mind as parents. And we should not have to worry about what activity may be occurring right on the other side of the back fence. I know comments have been made about this not being operated as a facility, but I do find it very strange that, right now, the facility is advertised on multiple sober living websites, of which I have print out here already as well.

For those reasons, we respect to request that the

All right. Go ahead.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Wyatt Russell. Tonight, staff recommends that you uphold the hearing officer's approval based on a finding that the applicant satisfies Costa Mesa municipal code section thirteen-three 11 a and b and that no disqualifying grounds exist. I respectfully believe the record does not support that conclusion. At the original hearing, the applicant was asked directly whether they were operating a sober living home or recovery residence at 1601 Baker prior to approval.

The applicant's response was clear, quote, no, we're not operating any type of sober living home there. I do have a couple of tenants living there, but they have nothing to do with sober living or recovery. That statement is material under the code. Section thirteen-three 11, subsection a, paragraph one states, no person operate, open or operate a group home until the required disclosures have been provided and approval obtained. Operation is not informal, it is not transitional, It is a regulated condition.

However, the County of Orange Health Care Agency contract that I attached to my public, written public com comment titled Recovery Residence Services List 1601 Baker Street as a service location. That contract has been active for years and requires that this house be operated as an Orange County Sheriff Certified Recovery Residence. In addition, the property has been publicly advertised on the operator's website as a recovery residence. The interior photos match the historical Zillow listing for the property. Archive versions of the website show the home marketed as a recovery residence for years.

A county contract and public advertising at a specific address are not passive activities. They are holding the property out as a recovery residence. If that occurred, then the statement that no sober living use was operating is inconsistent with the documented record. Under section 13 dash three one one, subsection b, paragraph one, a permit must be denied or revoked if materially false or misleading information was provided. This

is

not about whether sober living homes are permitted in Costa Mesa. The issue tonight is whether this specific application satisfies the municipal code and whether the record supports finding, a finding that no disqualifying grounds exist. At minimum, the inconsistencies in the record warrant further review before adopting a resolution affirming full compliance. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Marilyn Scott Waters. I've lived in Costa Mesa since 1961, And I've lived on Baker Street for thirty five years. I live at 1589 Baker Street, just three doors down from the proposed Step House Recovery Group home. And I respectfully ask you to deny the special use permit for this facility. First, this project has not complied with CEQA.

Issuing a use permit for a six bed sober living home in a quiet R1 neighborhood is a discretionary action. It can increase traffic, parking congestion, noise, and public safety calls. That makes it a project under CEQA, and yet there's been no initial study, no negative declaration, no environmental impact report, and no clear exemption findings. Simply labeling the permit ministerial does not eliminate the city's discretion to approve, condition, or deny it. Without proper environmental review, the approval will be legally vulnerable.

Second, the project is inconsistent with our general plan and the extent of R1 zoning. The general plan commits the city to protect and enhance residential neighborhoods and preserve their character. Approving a second twenty four hour congregate living facility immediately next to an existing STRTP, which is six high school girls. And I want to know, do they do any drug testing or alcohol counseling? Because these two places, they operate the same.

The difference is the ages. This is an overconcentration of intense uses on one small block and undermines the balance of the general use plan. Third, there are serious concerns about compliance with municipal code thirteen-three 11. The city has not verified the 600 foot separation requirement from parcel level analysis. There are also questions about whether the operator has advertised or operated other homes before receiving proper approvals.

The code requires findings about responsibility and liability, and I appreciate all your good questions today. Given the testimony regarding litigation and prior authorization, these findings cannot simply be assumed. Finally, the practical impacts are real. Neighbors have already We've been experiencing parking overflow, blocked driveways, late night activity, and secondhand smoke from similar facilities. Families are concerned about safety, stability, and declining property value.

Adding another 24 operation next door will only intensify those impacts. We just keep the city's promise, as stated in the Costa Mesa land use element, to continue to maintain the quality of life for our residents, prevent overconcentration, and require responsible operation. For these reasons, I ask you respectfully to deny SUP twenty five zero one.

Thank you.

Anyone else in chambers wish to speak?

Through the chair. I love to ask the business question, what problem are we trying to solve here? If we remember why we're here, the mayor called this up for a review of impacts to neighborhoods of sober living operations. Those mandate facts. The hearing officer or the designated hearing officer was not a staff member, was an attorney skilled at hearing facts, saw no such facts to warrant denial.

Listened tonight. Read the letters. I saw valid concerns from an individual, but I didn't see any facts. If you remember back ten years ago when we put the group home ordinance in place, we had an abundance of known and knowable facts. So I don't see staff presenting, well, not at this address, but over at these addresses, here are the facts. I don't see that. I don't see them bringing in facts from other communities. I don't see any facts. Next page. So Ohio House has been operating in our community for ten years.

It's perfectly located over on Wilson, behind the Circle K. The 500 foot radius extends into the 55, so it's the perfect area. If you remember my days with some of the other projects that I come forward, I walk the neighborhoods and I talk. What I determined a couple years ago is between the Circle K here and the Circle K on Del Mar, 500 calls for service in a three sixty five day period. What problem are we trying to solve? The impacts on Newport Boulevard are real. They're sustained. If you walk that night, I'll meet you any Saturday after work at any time and go talk to those folks that are out there. They will tell you there are real and sustained projects. Next slide please.

What's interesting is I pulled recently the Motel six, the Project Homekey conversion. 186 calls for service. Do you know that that's more than the historical notorious problem we'll tell the Vagabond in? That is a problem. The Ohio House. You know how many code violations they have? None. You know how many police calls for service they have? None. Thousand years of sobriety has been achieved. I've walked this community. Over the back fence, the most potentially impacted, I have a letter of support. Happy to show it at any time. I walked on Wilson. Mom with kids signed a letter of support.

Most impacted. Two dog walkers said I walk in the morning and the night. If anything is happening, I would know. The fact is there's no documented problems here. So what problem are we trying to solve? Thank you for your help.

Thank you. All right, last chance anyone in Chambers? Anna, do we have anybody on Zoom or phone?

Yes, Frances, you may provide your public comment.

Hi. Thank you. I am also a member of the Mesa Verde community. I live right behind Maryland, actually. Thank you guys for taking time to hear me.

I am very concerned about this facility. I really wanna encourage the chamber to, take the time to think through what, other members of our community like Wyatt and Marilyn had to say about this. And I just wanna also say that when someone's saying what problem are we trying to solve, there are is so much data that shows that people who are struggling with substance abuse have forty to sixty percent rates of relapse and that people who are unfortunately in relapse and using, you know, illicit drugs or alcohol have much higher rates of violent crimes, twenty six point one percent, twenty four point seven percent for property crimes, fifty seven point two percent for driving under the influence. And this is from the US Department Justice Bureau of Statistics. These are real things that will affect our community, and I think we also need to make sure that what this business is doing is actually what they say they're doing.

So I wanna thank you for your time today and just want to really encourage you to think through what everybody has said. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else, Hannah?

Cynthia Mcdonald, you may provide your public comment.

Good evening again. You know, I appreciate the need for sober living facilities, but in terms of solving a problem, I think it's preventing a problem. A house full of men who are struggling with addiction next to a house full of teenage girls, you know, that just sounds like a can of gasoline and a box of matches. Thank you.

Thank you.

There's no one else, mister chairman.

Okay. All right. All right. One more from Chambers. Give me one second. Go ahead.

All right. Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Kristen Auslander, and I live directly behind 1601 Baker Street. I moved to Costa Mesa five years ago when I was expecting my second child. There were two primary reasons that I chose Costa Mesa. One was a family friendly neighborhood, and the other was a backyard where my children and their friends could play safely with their friends. While I'm supportive of treatment programs, I'm concerned about this facility being in our neighborhood. There were the questions raised earlier about operating without a permit. Again, I've lived behind this facility for five years.

Additionally, the other properties operated by Step Pass Recovery have had a history of police activity, which you can clearly see by searching Fountain Valley Police Activity Reports. Just this last weekend, my son was playing football and threw his football over the fence, which happens from time to time. When it's the neighbors on the side, we just tell them, go next door. Go ring their doorbell. When it went over to 1601, we said, no, you've got to go with an adult.

That's really a sad thing to be able to have to say to my kids growing up in this neighborhood. There was discussion about the discharge policy. They get discharged after something happens. I don't want something to happen in my back yard with my family. So, respectfully request that this application be reconsidered, considering the best interest of our community and what Costa Mesa stands for. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, I'll ask the applicant if you'd like to come back up. I I at least have a question. Commissioners might, but you can respond to some of the public testimony you've heard.

Thank you. I think it's important to note that Step House Recovery has been in business for about twenty some odd years. And prior to this special use permit application, they were operating as not only a sober living facility, but they were also operating as treatment. Subsequently, there was issues with reimbursement from insurance companies, and the treatment portion of Step House Recovery was shut down. And the Baker House was converted into a single family resident rental.

And prior to that, there is, I'm sure, a ton of information out there about Step House. They've been around for a very long time. But the house has not been operating as a sober living facility. And I think that that's very important to note. That it was, at one time, a treatment facility, but in the interim, it was rented to a family.

It is now being rented to several tenants. And they are very aware that we are filing this special use permit and that we'd like to convert the home over to a residential recovery program home. I understand the neighbors' concerns, specifically the phone calls to the emergency facilities. When we go through the Fountain Valley Special Use Permit, that's one of the first things they did, was they gave us a list of the phone calls that had been placed to emergency services. And that does happen.

I'm not going to sugarcoat that. There are times where individuals may need medical treatment. And it's not always because of their addiction. Sometimes it is because they have other disabilities, they have other medical concerns, and there is times where the emergency services have to be dispatched. There are also times when the police are dispatched. I'm not going to sugarcoat that either. That does happen. But those incidences are not on the regular. I also would like to recognize the fact that these individuals are not criminals. They are very much like you and me.

They are most of them that come through this program are individuals who are in Medi Cal, who qualified for a program that was again vetted by the health care agency of Orange County. And many of them are individuals that are employed. They have jobs. They are taking a little time out to go to treatment. But they are normal citizens like you and I are.

I know that we like to look at addiction recovery as derelicts and individuals who are homeless and unhoused, those types of things. And we do have those individuals. There are individuals who end up in shelters and things afterwards because don't have resources to, you know, family and support and things like that. But these individuals are not criminals. They are just like you and me.

There's any one of us that could be in that program. I've met and worked with the women that we have a house that does have most of all women. It's a women's only home. And I've worked very closely with these ladies. And I don't have a degree or anything like that in sobriety, but I've been given the opportunity to spend time with these ladies. And they're pretty normal folks. And the problems that we have are few and far between. We don't have criminal activity. This program is a little bit different. I've had sober living homes near me.

I've had a lot of issues with trash, and loud noises and smoke and things that are very inconvenient and very unsettling. And one of the reasons that I work with Stuff House is because of the policies, procedures, the protocols that they have in place. And one of them is George is very, very passionate about recovery, but he's also very passionate about preserving his relationship with his neighbors, because he is a homeowner. He is not leasing this home. This is his home. And so he has respect for his neighbors.

All right. Thank you. Any questions, commissioners? Vice Chair Zik.

You indicated that the property used to be a treatment facility. When did that shut down?

Oh my gosh.

2017.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. Alright. If there are no more questions, you can sit down. Okay. I'm gonna close the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioners, any more questions of staff?

I I have a quick question.

Vice chair

I mean,

commissioner Dixon.

To that point, the last, the observation about the 2017 shutdown, I just wanted to check with staff if to the hearing officer and staff's satisfaction if the requirement of A1.3, whereas a license and permit history of the applicants, including whether such applicants in previously operating a similar use in this or another city, county, or state, or license and or permit has had such license and or permit revoked or suspended. And the reason, therefore, it sounds like that was not a licensed or permitted facility prior to 2017. But what sort of I did see the materials from Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach in the evidence and the staff report. What sort of diligence was done on the prior operations, if any, of a similar type of use in Costa Mesa?

Yeah, so the hearing officer did speak to the applicant regarding this specific item in regards to their current operation in Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, the applicant confirmed that there haven't been any revocations or suspensions for those existing facilities. However, there wasn't any expansion regarding any prior use to this location.

Okay. And then, again, we heard from Mr. Russell about prior operations. And I just wanted to find out, what is the standard or what is do you accept the veracity of the applicant's materials to comply with 13,311 and the written code. But you don't necessarily go and independently or do you go and independently verify those submittals?

Meaning that have we had any sort of regarding the operation of the county and I appreciate the explanation from the applicant about the certificate issued and about the permitting. And I can understand how you'd want to have all that lined up and keep it going and all that good stuff. But what sort of verification does the city do as far as the veracity of information supplied?

Yeah, with all the documentation that they provide, we make sure that they're saying that they're in compliance or will comply with that standard. However, specific to the county operations, staff doesn't go to the level of verifying and confirming the county's side of things.

All right. So we we be based on the application materials and the written materials provided. Any sort of follow-up questions the staff may have or the hearing officer had? I saw in the initial letter and all that good. Okay. Thank you.

Alright. Vice Chirzuk?

Thank you. Yeah, veracity was a word that I had in my mind just before Commissioner Dixon mentioned it. So the public comment that we received from Wyatt Russell and he spoke, but he also had provided a written comment. It's dated 10/23/2025. Was that included in the hearing officer's consideration of this application?

Was this public comment available to him for that hearing?

Yes, it was.

Okay. Were you present at that hearing as well? Yes. Okay. Characterization in the written public comments and the comments by Mr.

Russell here tonight speak pretty directly to claims of misrepresentation. And so I'm wondering to what extent those were investigated, vetted, discounted. Were those claims found to be not true? Were those claims that weren't investigated? Help me understand that.

Yes. So with our current city records, history. So if there's any code enforcement complaints, or if there's any open code enforcement cases that are open, we verify and see what those code enforcement cases are about. I verified any complaints. I didn't see any code enforcement actions in the past or present. So that was the level of verification to any sort of operations in the past. If the applicant was,

as has been alleged, think by another public commenter, advertising this location as a sober living home, they've been advertising it wherever they might advertise. Is that a problem? Or is that allowed?

I think only if they're operating.

If they're not operating and they're currently not operating, are you saying that would not be allowed to advertise this address as a sober living home?

I would need to double check if there's any provisions that would allow advertising.

Okay. And then I have another question for you. And this comes from another public comment, and this was from a former city council member. And it kind of relates to this idea of a sober living home, all men next to a was it Child USA of all teenage women, girls. In this former council member's public comment, she postulates that we could conceivably have senior home next to a sober living home, next to a home for developmentally disabled, next to a home for abused children, next to a halfway house, next to a recovery home for battered women, all in one block, and our city would allow that because the separation requirement only deals with separation from sober living and all those other things I just mentioned were not.

And it seems to, according to the public comment, I want your reaction to it, seems to run counter to the intention of, she cites the Lantern Man Act. And maybe this is something for the city attorney to opine on. But it seems as if, in this case, it's relevant because we have the property right next door with teenage girls. Not Is a factor of consideration for us? I mean, ceases to become a quiet residential neighborhood if we have these institutional uses in the concentration.

Right, so the provisions under this section it excludes those type of facilities. So you are correct. It would only be between sober living homes.

City attorney, anything to add to my quandary about this concentration of institutional uses in the residential neighborhood?

Thank you, Commissioner Zick. This is really a policy consideration. The code is written in a certain way. But for consideration, most state licensed facilities, not drug and alcohol treatment facilities, most state licensed facilities do have their own internal separation between other state licensed facilities. DHCS licensed facilities are one of the few six or fewer facilities that does not have a separation requirement. So, candidly, without knowing exactly what type of state license facilities were supposed to be going there, I really couldn't opine on that, the accuracy of what we're stating.

All

right. Well, comments are helpful. Thank you. That's it. Thank you, chair.

All right, any other questions? If not, nope, nope. Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Anyone like to make a motion? Someone's got an opinion here.

All right. I move that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to find that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to sections one five two six eight, ministerial projects and fifteen three zero one existing facilities, and uphold the hearing officer's issuance of special use permit PGSH 20 4002 to allow sober living home with and with six or fewer persons, not counting the house manager at 1601 Baker Street.

Alright. I'll second for discussion. Would like to speak to your motion?

No.

Okay. I will then. I think that that's actually the right decision here. We have a very narrow scope with regards to this consideration. I've looked at everything that was provided to us, as well as the hearing.

I didn't see anything new, new evidence that would change my mind about whether or not the applicant provided the information that was required by our code. To me it seems like this is a very narrow consideration for us. And puts policy aside. I completely understand Nabors' concerns about this. I sat on this dais for years dealing with sober living home applications when we actually had significant impacts that were demonstrated with considerable evidence.

This is for a prospective application and I don't think we have any information that changes that calculation for me. So that's why I'll be supporting the motion. Vice Chair Zwick.

I reluctantly find myself in the exact same spot as the chair has articulated. I spent a significant amount of time going through this staff package. Those of you who stayed awake for my questioning could probably attest, it seems as if this applicant has complied with what the city has as its code. Our body's role is not to set policy or even change policy. It is to apply the policy of the council and apply the ordinances that the council has passed.

And I don't see anything in here that allows me to take issue with that. I read all the public comment letters. I know exactly how you feel. I know how I would feel if I were in your shoes. And all I can suggest to you is that the rules we're following, and you're not going to like this next part, the rules we're following were made by people that were voted into office, whether we're talking about city, county, state, federal.

We're following the laws, the people that you all voted for have put in place. Now, there might be some discretion that the city council could make with regard to this application. If it gets called up for council review, they might consider a concentration of other facilities and whether that's consistent with the policy that they set out that we're implementing. But we can't change their policy. And I regret to disappoint you with that.

But I'm here to do a job, and the job is to approve packages that are consistent with city policies.

Commissioner Dixon?

And briefly to follow on Vice Chair's comments. I previously served on the Planning Commission back during the initial issues with sober living homes in Costa Mesa. And if anybody was around for that period of time, we can understand some of the issues that folks are worried about and complaining about and concerned about. However, this is a ministerial application. And we are determining whether or not they have complied with the requirements of the municipal code.

And based on the evidence in front of us and based on the application materials we have, they have. And so I will be supporting the motion as well. The hesitation, I think, you see is that we understand where the residents are coming from with concerns. However, a regulated facility is a regulated facility. A group of college students living next door, maybe not a regulated facility.

When I first bought my home over on the West Side, we had a house full of and I'm not kidding nine men in their 50s and 60s who thought that the previous owner had buried gold in the backyard. And they had undermined my property and the neighbor's property. And they would poke their heads over the fence in all hours of day and night to ask what we were doing. So there are problems that people can have with neighbors, no matter who lives next door. And the only thing I can say to give some comfort to neighbors and residents is that our permitting system and the system that is in place for these types of facilities do provide contact information and recourse if there are problems that occur.

And I hope there aren't. There are very well operated silver lining facilities. I'm not sure if anybody in the crowd or listening has had folks who've gone through these addiction issues. I had a very close relative of mine that was going through the process with the county years ago when there was still a robust system where you had consequences. And she spent several months in a sober living facility in Costa Mesa that was well run and was regulated, and it helped her.

So our decision is based on the ministerial compliance with the code requirements, and I believe that this application has met those. And I just want the folks to understand that we do hear your concerns, and we do share them. But that's why I will be supporting this motion tonight.

Any other commissioners wish to speak? Okay, if not, let's call for the question.

That motion carries seven zero.

Right. That decision is final unless appealed to the city council within five days. Sorry. Seven days. Let's take a five minute break, shall we?

Okay. All right, we are back on the record. Our final public hearing item, Anna will you please read the title for public hearing item number one.

Public hearing item number one a resolution recommending that the city council amend the six cycle housing element twenty twenty one to twenty twenty nine of the city of Costa Mesa general plan p c t y dash 26 dash zero zero zero one in connection with the housing element sites rezoning P C T Y Dash 25 Dash zero zero zero eight and PSPA-twentySix-one. Please note we have received public comments on this item.

Alright, thank you Anna. I'll turn it over now to Ms. Halligan for staff's presentation.

Thank you. Good evening Chair and Commissioners. I'm Michelle Halligan, Senior Planner with the Economic and Development Services Department. I'm joined by Anna McGill, Advanced Planning Manager, and Melinda Dacey, Principal Planner. Tonight, we're presenting proposed targeted amendments to the housing element sites inventory.

First, we'll go over a little background information, then discuss the proposed limited amendments to the housing elements inventory, some next steps, and recommendation. Let's see. The city, as you know, was preparing to rezone housing element sites. We did a lot of outreach, and we made a lot of progress. And then in October 2025, the Court of Appeal issued the new commune DTLA versus City of Redondo Beach opinion that changed the way many jurisdictions can meet the regional housing needs allocation.

So instead of a flexible overlay, an overlay would need to require new development on housing element sites to include at least 50% residential use. City staff have been meeting with property owners to further discuss how affects their property, and we've been fielding requests to add or remove sites from the housing element. Three property owners urgently requested to have their properties removed from the site's inventory, citing long term uses, long term leases, and just a difference in plans. So this results in a potential loss of 17 sites. At the same time, two property owners requested to have their Measure K properties added to housing element sites inventory.

These changes equate to a net loss of 15 sites and 5,431 units. This removes the city's buffer and impacts lower income capacity. The changes to the site's inventory triggers what is known as a no net loss analysis. Per state law, the city will have one hundred and eighty days to demonstrate adequate site capacity to meet the regional housing needs allocation at specific income levels. For now, city staff is proposing to make targeted amendments to the site's inventory.

Just looking at Appendix B at this time, to remove text references to those 17 properties and their capacities and add text references about two new properties. Captions and footnotes about updating tables and figures in Appendix B are proposed because later on there would be wholesale changes to the housing element, including the capacity analysis, following the completion of a full analysis to identify adequate sites. So the next steps are to have the city council review the targeted amendments to the housing element. Then we would conduct a detailed analysis to identify sites to meet the arena and have some buffer. There would be outreach to property owners as well as the community.

We would craft table, text, and figure updates, and then submit a draft to HCD for review. Then the updated housing element could be adopted. Staff recommends the Planning Commission finds that the project is consistent with the City Council adopted resolution certifying the MND and adopting Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program statutorily, and that the program is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21,080.085 A, also known as SB 131, and recommends that the city council adopt a resolution to amend the city of Costa Mesa's sixth cycle twenty twenty one-twenty twenty nine housing element of the city's general plan to add two housing element opportunity sites and remove 17 housing element opportunity sites listed below. So this concludes staff's presentation and we are available to respond to your questions.

Thank you Ms. Halligan. Commissioners, any questions of staff? Commissioner Dixon.

Thank you very much. Could you just briefly what's the process right now for reaching out to additional sites to make up for the deficit?

So as we discussed at the February 9 meeting, we sent a letter to all housing element property owners to let them know about the court opinion and to put them on our interested parties list so they'd be informed of next steps. If the City Council approves the action to amend the housing element, to remove the 17 sites and add the two sites, it will start the one hundred and eighty days opening of the housing element. At that time, we will start doing a little bit more robust community outreach. We're already talking to property owners. That's happening consistently.

And so we have property owners who wanted to move now and be added to the housing element. We had some property owners that are still thinking through what their options are, and we'll continue to discuss it as we get to the six month, the one hundred and eighty day period. We have some property owners on the housing element site that want to look at increasing their So we're having those conversations ongoing. We'll need to do some additional outreach to the community as well to let the community know what we're doing. But we're still kind of in the mapping phase, I'll just say, so that we can fully understand.

We know this action alone is going to remove our buffer, but we still have some buffer capacity in some of the income categories, and we're actually below the RENNA allocation in low and very low. So we need to kind of do some math to make up that difference. So it'll be a variety of strategies.

Okay, great. Yeah, we had a huge buffer, as noted in the staff report. We've already and some of the decisions we've made since the RENE allocations, we've already used that buffer. So I'm comfortable with that. And one other question is, were you able to verify or determine the status of the new commune matter? I had seen on the court's website that the appeal, the petition had been denied. Have we heard any updates post that? Or is that where it is, it's done?

No, that is the final decision because the review has been denied. The appellate court decision stands.

And I appreciate this entire process that was initiated by the folks requesting to be removed because that changed the entire landscape of that entire mechanism. I So think this is really prudent on the city's part. I hope that the thank you.

Any other questions of staff, commissioners? Okay. Commissioner Martinez.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So first, I wanted to note that this item, I think, came to us very quickly from our last meeting, essentially. And I wanted to ask, how is it done so quickly, just in broad terms?

Well, following the February 9 meeting, there were conversations with our legal team about whether or not an amendment to the housing element needed to come to the Planning Commission for a recommendation or could go to the city council. So that was the determination that we received, that we needed a Planning Commission recommendation. The conversations that we've been having with property owners who want to be added or removed have been ongoing since those letters were sent out back in December. So we have brought to you the property owners that we know of that have made formal requests at this time. It might not be the end of it.

We know that we need to open the housing element for another one hundred and eighty days. We may get more requests. And if we do, we will move forward with requests appropriately during that window of time.

Because this process happens so quickly, do we think that all interested parties were adequately informed?

I wouldn't say that the process is happening quickly. I would say that they're happening concurrently. And because the city is actively pursuing certification, a lot of the property owners in Costa Mesa that are on that site's inventory are following the legal case and they're following our process. So this is not a Costa Mesa only consideration. Property owners across California are looking at the implications of their sites as it relates to the court opinion.

It may be the case in future that we have legislation that gets approved at the state level to clarify this further, and we are going to be watching that to ensure that our property owners know how that might affect them. So I don't think it's like a fast process, it's just because we are a city who is actively seeking certification right now that is maybe causing some property to go, oh, might be an opportunity right now to either be added or removed that may not have existed if you have a city that already has a certified housing element.

All right. Let's talk about certification. Our last meeting, we recommended some municipal code amendments in the hopes of receiving HCD certification with those amendments. By recommending this change to our housing element, essentially do we kill those hopes of receiving HCD certification?

No. We will still continue on the process of moving forward with city council and then submitting to HCD for certification. It's a little bit unique because we're not certified right now, but think of it as a hypothetical. If we were already certified and a property owner came the city and said, I want to be removed, we would still be taking these steps and we would then enter into no net loss. So we're still in communication with HCD about the crest that we received. We're still on a pathway to submit through certification. This is why the state law allows for that one hundred and eighty day period, because the state doesn't want to suddenly decertify every single housing element where a property owner has been removed and they need to go through this process of identifying new sites, and this is kind of the same process.

Okay. So you're telling me there is still a chance that we get certified even if this housing element amendment goes through.

Yeah, and we're still gonna submit to the state and seek certification knowing that we have one hundred and eighty days to meet these requirements. Now, if we get to the end of the one hundred and eighty days and we haven't identified the site, then there's a chance HCD could remove our certification. But we don't anticipate that happening. We're actively working to find new sites and meet the RINA allocation.

And then just to add on to that Commissioner Martinez, you asked about the action that the Planning Commission took at the last meeting which was a recommendation on rezoning. So it was zoning amendments. Tonight's action does not relate to zoning amendments. And so, therefore, the the track on the zoning amendments continues on as a parallel track. And so to planning manager McGill's point that this is happening concurrently, we will continue on with completing the rezoning as deemed necessary by state law. And then this just relates to the requests to add and remove sites from the site's inventory. But this is on the housing element level. This is a general plan amendment. The other one's a rezone. So it's two different parallel levels.

Let's stick with process of our two parallel efforts regarding this. So tonight's action is to recommend to the city council. Last meeting's action was also to recommend to the city council, the the rezoning. Are these going to be presented to the city council as two separate items or as one item?

Commissioner Martinez, so we would be if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation for us to move forward to city council, we would present that recommendation very quickly. And then in that same meeting, we would like to move forward with the rezoning that we presented to you at the last meeting. So we're doing our best to stay on a great path forward and show each city a lot of progress.

Okay. Because the last meeting, the item contained some amendments that affected these sites specifically, so I just wonder how the order of things staff will figure that out.

Yeah, and we've had some really productive conversations with like a North Coast Of Mesa specific plan property owner. A lot of progress has been made, and we realized that some of those tweaks are really just minutiae. So we're looking forward to presenting the updates to city council.

Okay.

Why not present this to us later when we have engaged with property owners so that we don't have to go beneath our REN account and trigger that one hundred and eighty days to go out? Why not have this housing element process amendment process later on once we have the requisite number of sites proposed to be added to reach our RINA number in each of the different income categories? Why do this now?

Yeah, that's a great question. We're trying to honor the requests of property owners. We understand that when we originally started these conversations to be added to the housing element sites inventory, the assumptions were different, and they've changed. And that is not the city's fault, and it's not the property owner's fault. So we're trying to honor their request for making a different determination on their site moving forward with an understanding of that court decision.

The plan when we go to the city council would be to have them first make action on the general plan amendment. And once they do that, we have a new list of housing element sites. So if and when they then make the action in the same meeting to rezone the sites, that mixed use overlay district would then only apply to the housing element sites. So therefore it would not apply to the sites that we've just removed, which was also part of the request in the letters. And we saw that and had that discussion on February 9. So we're also trying to honor that, where those property owners specifically don't want to be rezoned. And we think we can accommodate that by doing these actions in that sequence.

Okay. Let's talk about our one hundred and eighty days. So if this gets approved by us and then the city council, we then get into this one hundred and eighty day period to find more sites. So my my first question is, we going to ask all of our current measure case sites about interest in being added to our housing element?

That's a good question. We are still figuring out what our potential strategies are, and we're working very closely with our consultant to identify that. The reason is that, and as some commissioners have already stated on this diets tonight, we actually planned for almost 150% over our RENA, including our buffer. So that's why I say we're still working out the math. Like there are some income categories where we actually just need to meet Rina, and there are some income categories after all this is done where we're still over buffer.

Most cities typically do a 10 to 15% buffer. We think that's more appropriate. So when we start the one hundred and eighty days, we will start the process of identifying the strategies to best get back to our arena and maintain a buffer. That might mean looking at measure case sites and reaching out to those property owners and seeing if there is interest from those property owners and being added to the inventory. In addition to some other potential strategies like maybe changing the density capacity for some sites if we need to. So I'm speaking really high level right now because that's what the one hundred and eighty days is, to go through that process and try to identify what those strategies should be.

All right. And would you anticipate that any non measure case sites would be contacted at all?

Commissioner Martinez, we are only looking at our housing limit sites and our measure K sites because measure K enables the city to conduct the rezoning without a citywide vote.

Yeah.

And then since it's a one hundred and eighty day process, I'm assuming well, actually, don't know. Does a housing element amendment also require a thirty days post city council before it's effective, or is it immediately upon a vote?

General plan amendments via resolution and adoption usually go into effect immediately, unless there's some type of language added that says that there's a stay on when it goes into effect.

Okay. So that means that the night the city council votes on this, and if they approve it, that starts one hundred and eighty days. And then by the one hundred and eightieth day, the city council also has to vote on it, which means, let's say, a month to two weeks before that is when we might see this again. Is that roughly accurate assumption?

Yeah, that's a good assumption. There is also government code that requires the city to submit to HCD before the City Council takes action. We're required to give them sixty days. Obviously, because coordination with HCD, they may not take the sixty days, but we need to make that an available option before we come back to the Planning Commission and City Council.

Thank you. Those are my questions.

Okay. Commissioners, any other questions? Commissioner Andrade.

Yes. One quick question. You mentioned a couple of ways that would get us back on the time line to address the non net loss. I would love to include or discuss what's the opportunity in the inclusionary housing ordinance to go from 10% to 15% of affordable housing. Is that also an opportunity to move forward for city council?

Commissioner Andrade, the affordable housing ordinance, reopening that up, I don't think would allow us to meet our timelines. That's a totally separate process. We would concurrently have our housing element rezoning, our measure K rezoning, our CEQA process, our Fairview Development Center specific plan, and then our cap. So then we'd be adding changes to that on top of it. I really want us to stick to the schedule. We're making a lot of progress. And so I think maybe that's a goal for another year.

Also, if I can add, I would think about it this way. We need to identify the sites needed to meet RENA. A potential future amendment to the inclusionary ordinance might give us a little bit more teeth to tell HCD like we think we can actually get these units and here's why. But you can't adopt an inclusionary ordinance in order to meet your arena. You still have to identify the sites and identify realistic capacity on those sites.

Okay. So based on what you've gone over, you're setting a clear timeline where we'll be able to identify opportunities. You're in, you said, concurrent conversations with property owners and in conversations with housing, right, California Department of Housing and Community Development. Helpful to know that the team is hyper focused on this. Thank you.

All right. If there are no more questions, I will open up the public hearing and open the public comments. If you'd like to speak to this item, please come to either podium. If you're on Zoom, use the raise hand option. And if you're calling by phone, please press 9.

All right, go ahead.

Thank you, through the chair. I call part of this process the neighborhoods where expensive consultants think we belong, right? But these conversations, I'm just wondering how, after all these conversations, how at the last meeting you show up, and there's these substantial objections. Right? And I just want you to realize that I don't understand why the letters from HCD, disability rights, the attorney general are all being summarily ignored trying to actively engage with the city in a conversation and prevent you from making what I think is a colossal, known and noble mistake.

You're heading right for an iceberg. First, you know, I keep hearing the city is winning on on group homes, and I just want everyone to know that's not true. The Insight case, the city lost. The city had to cut Insight a check for $1,750,000 That's not winning. But what's material to this conversation is another element that the Development Rights Council requires the city to modify the group home ordinance.

They are miles apart. The city went like this much, and they're looking for that. And that gives the rights of the DRC to sue the city, and it's not being addressed. The city's tone deaf. You really need to before you make a vote tonight, you need to understand why the last meeting these letters from the DRC and the Ohio house were ignored. Why they're gonna be ignored tonight. Okay? Make no mistake. By the March 17 deadline, the city is getting another letter from HCD. Rather than reach out and say, hey.

What do you think about this? How's this working? Nope. And therefore and I'm really concerned that it's gonna be punitive at this time because the city's had been tone deaf to the attorney general, to the HCD, has been summarily tone deaf, that it's gonna have teeth this time. So how do you achieve substantial compliance and get certified in this environment? What has exactly been modified as required by the AG, HCT, and the DRC Insight Settlement? Can somebody tell me what's been modified? Because I don't see it. All those parties don't see it. And why is the city picking a fight with HCT?

It makes no sense. Did you see the DRC letter in your thing and see how far they are apart? Why in these conversations with people that are trying to engage and help, why why isn't the city engaging? Right? We wanna move do we wanna perpetuate this aggressive litigation or move to a phase of cooperation? You can only do that if you're really going to have quality conversations. And this other thing in there about group homes, this whole operator, nobody knows what it is. It's another one of those Trojan horses that needs to be stricken. You have bad facts coming your way. And this is your chance to remedy it. I hope somebody will take me up on the opportunity to ask the city attorney why.

Thank you.

Excuse me. Hello, my name is Gaye Royer. I'm the current president of the Costa Mesa Women's Club. I'm a local girl, 80 years, and yes, I'm still a girl. Okay? I've come to ask you to please take our property, which is owned by all the members of the Women's Club, to take us off the list. We've been in Costa Mesa for a hundred and fifteen years. It started in the home of Alice Plummer, who, by the way, named Costa Mesa and she won $25. It moved on Old Newport Boulevard where the bicycle shop is. On the sidewalk is a plaque about the Friday afternoon club.

We then bought the property at 18th And Anaheim Street, and the building was built in 1950. We've been there ever since. We've we've burned the mortgage since 1961, and we've been there ever since. I'm I just came to say how important it is to the community, especially the West Side. Many people use that.

Many nonprofits use it. It's a neighborhood get together for birthdays, communions, everything. All kinds of different things. Carden Hall, which is a school on the West Side, has had their their eighth grade dance for forty five years at the women's club. Shen Yen, who does the dancing, they have a philanthropic group that come down for the last three years, and they cook.

Well, they bring food for the dancers and musicians when they're not performing. It's it's used by many, many different groups, and the the Lions Club use it. It's just you it's mostly important in the neighborhood because it's we keep it affordable. It's an old building, but we love it. Also, it's not fenced, and the reason we didn't wanna fence it is because there's no sidewalk there.

And the bus pulls up, and there's 20 kids every day on our property waiting to get on the bus. The parents are waiting in the parking lot when they get out. So I'm saying, please, please, it's important to us. A hundred and fifteen years should mean something. Anyway, I'm asking you please to consider taking us removing us from the list so that we some of us are really old. Don't have to worry about the property. We're very passionate about it. We have 100 members, and we're getting new members all the time. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Say sorry for anything. Good evening. Guess night now. Commissioners, my name is Sue Lester. I'm here in support of Gay Royer and a letter I believe that was sent to you by Sandy Schaeffer and sent to members of the City Council on behalf of the Costa Mesa Women's Club and removing their property located at 1610 West 18th Street in support of having that removed from the list of opportunity sites for the housing site element.

At the last Planning Commission meeting, prominent familiesbusiness entities were successful in having their properties removed from the list. While I acknowledge the importance of the invaluable financial contributions these entities have made and continue to make to our community, they're not the only ones making significant contributions. The Costa Mesa Women's Club has been in existence for roughly one hundred and fifteen years, although their contributions to the community have been different than that of than than those of the wealthy and powerful, it isn't any less valuable to the parts of the community that it has and continues to serve. Located on the West Side, an area that historically is underserved and underrepresented, it serves as a safe place to meet, celebrate, and come together for a variety of reasons for the common good of families, business groups, and organizations throughout our city. Safe, inclusive, welcoming locations like this are needed now more than ever.

As a member of the Costa Mesa Women's Club for almost ten years, I can attest to the good work being done by these wonderful multi generational women. They raise money for local charities, volunteers, and and volunteer and provide resources and support to a multitude of local worthwhile organizations and events in our city and beyond our city's borders. Why should this property be removed from your list? The women's club has no intention of selling or redeveloping the property. Number two, by rezoning this property and including it on the list for opportunity sites for housing would be deliberately misleading because it's not available.

You will essentially be painting a huge target on this property and the backs of these fine ladies, and then who will then be pursued and hounded by unscrupulous land developers, real estate developers, real estate brokers, agents, and self serving elected officials trying to get their hands on this property. And, yes, this has happened already more than one time. Now, am I saying all in developers and those people aren't scrupulous? Absolutely not. But, there are some bad actors out there. The Costa Mesa Women's Club deserves your support, and for you to respect the wishes of their own property. Please don't turn your back on one hundred and fifteen years' worth of service and support. Thank

you.

Good evening, commissioner. Some of you guys know me, some don't, but let's

get it

in the nitty gritty. So I'm definitely in support of removing the women's club off the list. First and foremost, if the city has any wishes to acquire any property, feel free and give me a call. I've got a whole list of people willing to sell. Then you guys can do whatever you wanna do with it.

Meanwhile, by you guys putting these overlays and supposedly affordable housing locations and so forth, You're encumbering property owners. I understand that you guys are in negotiations, but the city tends to be a bit of a bully and not always the best actor in seeking what's best for its constituents. And I can speak on that behalf personally. But the point of the matter is, you guys want more houses, more houses, more houses, which I understand. But what have you done to increase the infrastructure of our cities?

Streets aren't getting any wider. Matter of fact, you guys are diminishing it by putting islands in the middle of Harbor Boulevard. So and and to the next level is, whenever you build a house, there's gotta be so much open space. So what new parks are we putting in our town? Where are you guys coming up with this?

If you owned it, figure out what you wanna do with it. But as long as somebody else owns it, what gives you guys the right to come in and do an overlay and mandate. And I understand you guys need to do this because then you're not in compliant with the state and so forth. I'll be asking for some information from from public notice from the city manager's office. But it it just boggles me to the effect that everybody's trying to control everybody else by doing these things.

I'm not the most brilliant individuals, but I got the gist of what you guys are doing. But by throwing half a dozen of these DRC letter to the city, I haven't seen it. I haven't heard about it. I'd like to take a look at that. So I'd appreciate you guys if put yourself in the property owner's shoes, perhaps, and try try to make the right decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in chambers? Anna, do we have anybody on Zoom or phone?

Cynthia McDonald, you may provide your public comment.

Good evening again. I support removing the women's club from the list, but I respectfully ask that you pause and not approve this item tonight and instead require clear answers to several really serious issues before taking any action. First, staff is proposing changes to the site's analysis that will result in a net loss of roughly 46 percent of the city's non buffered right arena. And it sounds as if HCD has not been notified of this reduction. Why would the city advance this action without first seeking HCD's guidance?

What is the plan if HCD initiates enforcement and requires the city to replace the lost capacity? How will the city respond if a developer or third party seeks to compel rezoning of other properties to make up for the shortfall? And second, we know the city has lost funding for the homeless shelter due to noncompliance. What additional funding has been lost? As long as the city remains out of compliance, how does it plan to protect other critical funding sources like regional transportation funds and other housing related allocations from similar losses.

Third, what is the plan if HCD suspends Costa Mesa's permitting authority? Courts can suspend the ability to issue building permits including remodels, approved zoning changes, or approved subdivision maps, there could be fines of up to a $100,000 per month, potentially multiplied if unpaid. A court could even report a point a receiver to take control of housing element compliance. And ironically, continued noncompliance could result in even more ministerial no hearing approvings than exist today. Fourth, the agenda report identifies 17 properties proposed for removal from the site's analysis and many of the requested owners have legal counsel.

Once the city notifies other property owners, especially those without attorneys, they may also request removal which means the city will need to make additional amendments. And with sites being removed, how can the city credibly make a no net loss finding? Where exactly will the replacement capacity come from? As animated by staff, these changes have broader impacts on other housing element programs. For example, the numbers in program three c are no longer accurate.

Program three b requires alternative sites entitlements are not issued by mid twenty twenty seven, which appears increasingly likely unlikely. Where will those sites come from when the city's already falling short elsewhere? What other programs will now need amendment? The noncompliance status is exposing the city to legal and financial harm. I urge you to slow this down. Do it correctly, secure HCD input, notify all the affected property owners, and protect the city. I ask that you not approve this item tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Wait one second. One second. Anna, do we have anybody else in Zoom?

Priscilla, you may provide your public comment.

If Segerstrom sites are removed from the zoning list while the Costa Women's Center remains on it, it converts confirms my notion that billionaire property owners and developers run this city. Costa Mesa's women's center women's club has been a fixture in the city since 1910. Everything we do is for charity and the betterment of the city. Please remove our site from your list, and let us continue our our good work. Thank you.