Public Comments — Costa Mesa City Council, October 17, 2023

From: GREEN, BRENDA
To: TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: ISRAEL UNDER ATTACK: Jewish Federations Urge you to Stand with Israel Date: Monday, October 9, 2023 8:47:12 AM
For Council Communication

Brenda Green
City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
714/754-5221
E-mail correspondence with the City of Costa Mesa (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may, therefore, be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the act.

From: David Natker <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 7, 2023 7:08 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>
Subject: ISRAEL UNDER ATTACK: Jewish Federations Urge you to Stand with Israel

Dear Ms. Green,
Dear Elected Leader,
Backed by Iran, Palestinian terrorists have launched an unprovoked invasion and large-scale attack on Israel. In response, Israel has launched Operation Swords of Iron.

Representing 146 Jewish Federations and 300 independent Jewish communities across the country, Jewish Federations of North America stand in total and complete solidarity with our Israeli brethren.

Israel has a right and responsibility to respond to the devastating assault and protect its citizens from terrorism.

As your constituent, a concerned citizen and supporter of Israel, I urge you to make a clear and unequivocal statement in support for our ally Israel and its right to defend itself. As an elected official, your voice matters to ensure that the United States stands shoulder to shoulder with our ally.

Sincerely,
Sincerely,
David Natker
1913 Santa Ana ave
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

If you DO NOT receive a confirmation within 24 hours, please contact our office at (714) 754-5225.

City of Costa Mesa
Application for Committee Appointment
All information on this page only, is considered public information and will be released to the public, including being posted on the City’s website.

Name:

Indicate the name of the Commission you are interested in serving on:

City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626

1. Indicate why you wish to serve on this Commission. Provide any experience or qualifications you may possess that you think would be beneficial to this Commission. A resume (optional) may be attached. (Note: All information contained on the resume is public information, will be distributed to the public and posted on the City’s website).

2. As a Commission member, what ideas or projects are of interest to you?

Page 1 of 2 ends

Kohl Crecelius
Fairview Park Steering Committee
I have enjoyed my time serving on the committee and I'd like to continue to another term.

Completeing the Fairview Master Plan.
1 October 11, 2023
To: Fairview Park Steering Committee
Fr: Fairview Park Alliance

Fairview Park Alliance highly respects what FVPSC members say to our City Council about the Fairview Park Steering Committee’s decisions. The FVPSC members should not misrepresent the committee and committee members should keep in check what is said about their decisions by other committee members. If a committee member does misrepresent the committee and continues to do so even with warnings, then action should be taken to remove this member from the committee for misrepresentation and undermining the FVPSC’s goals.

Mr. Mat Garcia is a member of the FVPSC as an alternate and at times may be able vote on an item if another FVPSC member is absent. He was able to vote on whether the FVPSC recommended rc glider planes in Fairview Park, but the committee didn’t make that recommendation.

All of them voted “No” except Mr. Garcia.

Mr. Garcia told our City Council on May 2, 2023, that the only people recommending no rc glider planes in the park, was city staff. City committees are not city staff and Mr. Garcia also discounted CDFW’s recommendation for no glider planes as well as the city’s biologist.

Did Mr. Garcia forget that he voted on this item with FVPSC and was the only member voting for rc glider planes in Fairview Park? Did he forget this or did he intentionally misrepresent the committee? It doesn’t seem likely that he forgot since he has continually advocated for rc glider planes regardless of expert advice.

Mr. Garcia is the president of the Harbor Soaring Society (HSS). The HSS is a small group of rc plane flyers that were allowed to occupy part of Fairview Park in the recent past and recent videos will show flyers showing disregard of protected areas. They have degraded sensitive habitat and kicked birds off the mesa. They have installed another cement winch anchor next to a vernal pool. They are currently using both winches and destroying the habitat in the entire area They did all of this without following state, federal and city laws, rules, ordinances or proper procedures.

Mr. Garcia’s misrepresentation of the FVPSC has demonstrated behavior that should not be ignored by the FVPSC. Fairview Park Alliance asks that the FVPSC take immediate action toward removing Mr. Garcia from the committee.

A 501(c)(3) non-profit
corporation
Tax ID 82-2238446

Board Members:

Wendy Leece
President
Deborah Koken
Secretary
Kim Hendricks
Treasurer
Jason Komala
Web Master

Mailing Address:

Fairview Park Alliance
P.O. Box 2471
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-2471

E-Mail Address:

[email protected]

Website:
www.fairviewparkalliance.org

From: Adam Lombardi
To: CITY CLERK
Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 6:36:49 PM
To: City Council Members and City Planning StaffRe: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Costa Mesa, SCCC Group Holdings, Cannabis RetailDenial of Appeal Dear City Council Members and City Planning Staff,
I am writing to express my wholehearted support for PA-22-05, the proposed C21+ Costa Mesa cannabis retail project by SCCC Group Holdings.

I firmly believe that this project aligns with our community's wishes by approving Measure Q, and economic interests, and it should proceed without any hindrance.

Denying the appeal against this project is crucial for the growth and prosperity of our community and commitment to the voters.

This development will not only contribute positively to our local economy but also provide valuable medical cannabis resources and opportunities for our residents. I have full confidence in the thoroughness of the planning process and the decision made by the Planning Commission in approving this project.

I urge you to uphold their decision and deny the appeal, allowing this beneficial project to move forward.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,
[Your Name] [Phone Number]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Alfredo Valdez
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Costa Mesa, SCCC Group Holdings, Cannabis Retail Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 7:03:52 PM
Attachments: image002.png
To: City Council Members and City Planning Staff
Denial of Appeal
Dear City Council Members and City Planning Staff,
I am writing to express my strong support for PA-22-05, the proposed C21+ Costa Mesa cannabis retail project by SCCC Group Holdings. It is imperative that we honor the decision made by the voters through the approval of Measure Q.

The community has spoken, and it is our responsibility to respect their choice. Denying the appeal is not just a legal obligation; it is a moral duty to uphold the democratic process. This project aligns with the wishes of the people and promises economic growth and development for our city.

I urge you to stand firm in your commitment to the voters and deny the appeal against this project.

Thank you for your dedication to our community.

Sincerely,

Alfredo Valdez
President
RMP Safety Services Inc. dba
American Safety Group (SBE,DVBE,

SDVOSB)
909-429-1214 Office
909-728-3270 Cell
909-574-0886 Fax
www.asgcorpusa.com
www.rmpsafetyservicesinc.com
" Safety Happens @ the Speed of Sound"
" Accident's Happen @ The Speed of Light'

From: Leigh-Anne Kolasinski
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Mesa Verde Resident PA 22-05
Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 5:29:16 PM
Good afternoon,
My name is Leigh Anne Kolasinski and I am a nearly 4 decade resident of Mesa Verde. I see there are flyers going around opposing PA 22-05. I would like to express my support of cannabis businesses in our area. While I am not a user myself, I have seen many friends and family benefit from these types of therapeutic resources as alternatives to pharmaceutical antidepressants and pain killers. The opponents claim there are too many cannabis businesses near “businesses catering to kids”. This is false. This shopping center has a pharmacy, food that is not marketed for kids specifically, a 7/11, and some offices - none of which are geared for kids. Opponents also don’t seem to mind the dozens of liquor stores in the same area, which I would actually love to see less of if it were up to me. In my experience, alcohol establishments attract a more unsavory crowd than cannabis businesses and are far easier to access for minors. I cannot attend the council meeting so I wanted to forward my support of more cannabis businesses.

From: Atrium Scientific, Inc.

To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Re: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Costa Mesa, SCCC Group Holdings, Cannabis Retail Denial of Appeal Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 1:04:14 PM
Attachments: Atrium-Appeal-Rev.101623.pdf
Dear City Council Members and City Planning Staff,
I'm Bo Tao, CTO at Atrium Scientific Group, Inc. in Garden Grove, CA. Our team of dedicated scientists pioneers cutting-edge research in cannabinoid-based formulations, personal, and oral care advancements. With a deep commitment to scientific excellence, we've harnessed unique insights into the transformative potential of cannabinoids. Through our innovations, we've seen the positive impact on countless lives. Fueled by this belief, we are leading the way in redefining wellness standards, aiming to elevate well-beings.

I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for PA-22-05, the proposed C21+ Costa Mesa cannabis retail project by SCCC Group Holdings.

Our community has made its voice heard through the approval of Measure Q, indicating a clear mandate for responsible cannabis retail. As stewards of our democratic process, it is our responsibility to honor the voters' decision. Denying the appeal against this project is not just a legal requirement but a fundamental obligation to uphold the integrity of our democratic system.

I urge you to deny the appeal and support the will of the people as expressed through Measure Q.

Thank you for your dedication to our democratic ideals, and the well-being of our people.

Sincerely,
All the best,
Bo Tao / CTO
Atrium Scientific, Inc.

Murrieta | Garden Grove, California, USA / Tel: +1 626.380.5887 www.atriumsci.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Sev Kh
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: SUBJECT LINE: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail Denial of Appeal Date: Friday, October 13, 2023 7:51:38 AM
My name is Sevak Khachatoorian and I have had a substantial tenure within the investment and trading field. This role demands a comprehensive comprehension of market trends, emerging industries, and the prospective avenues for growth. It is within this context that I wish to express my unequivocal support for the cannabis industry, particularly in the context of C21+. This support extends beyond the purely investment-driven perspective and embraces the broader societal implications associated with this burgeoning sector.

Legalization and emergence of regulated cannabis can generate substantial tax revenues, create jobs, and stimulate the local economy. I believe that supporting C21+ Costa Mesa is not only a sound economic decision, but also a step towards a more progressive and holistic approach to healthcare and local economic growth.

Sincerely,

Sevak Khachatoorian
--
thanks
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: GREEN, BRENDA
To: TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Support for PA-22-05, C21+Cannabis Retail
Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 8:59:52 AM

From: Mary Ruiz-Salah <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2023 5:29 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Support for PA-22-05, C21+Cannabis Retail

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Mary Ruiz-Salah <[email protected]
>
Date: October 11, 2023 at 6:11:17 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+Cannabis Retail

To: City Council Members and City Planning Staff
Re: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail
Denial of Appeal

I am writing in support of C21+ 1505 Mesa Verde Costa Mesa CA 92626 and their PA-22-
05 application. We are requesting your denial of the appeal being heard at the October 17th City Council meeting. I have been a resident of Costa Mesa for years and all my three children graduated from different school from Cota Mesa city, we have a couple of businesses and have been witnesses of the revamping of the city which has come a long ways from what it used to be. My in laws suffer from some serious illnesses and have to visit these dispensaries for medicine to soothe/alleviate their pain and discomfort. I support cannabis in the city of Costa Mesa. C21+ Costa Mesa is a well-respected cannabis business that offers a unique medical cannabis. I believe the business of C21+ will be a positive addition to the Costa Mesa community.

Sincerely,
Mary Ruiz

From: GREEN, BRENDA
To: TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Cannabis Business Project PA-22-05 1505 Mesa Verde Drive East Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 8:59:37 AM

From: Bryan Ruiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2023 6:17 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Cannabis Business Project PA-22-05 1505 Mesa Verde Drive East

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Bryan Ruiz <[email protected]
>
Date: October 11, 2023 at 7:14:45 PM MDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Cannabis Business Project PA-22-05 1505 Mesa Verde Drive East
Hello City Council Members and City Planning Staff

I am writing in support of C21+ 1505 Mesa Verde Costa Mesa CA 92626 and their PA-22-
05 application. We are requesting your denial of the appeal being heard at the October 17th City Council meeting. My family has lived in Costa Mesa for many generations and we have loved the revamp the city has been getting. The cannabis industry has been funny enough a big part of our family‘s life due to the elderly people in our family that suffer from arthritis.Some who live across the street from this location in the senior living. It gives us a peace of mind knowing that they can travel across the street in close proximity to get some medicinal cannabis when they are in need instead of suffering for periods of time waiting for us to travel and pick something up to help ease the pain they are going through.

Plus with cannabis shop near by bring high security for the neighborhood and the senior living. Helping rid of the homeless situation that we struggle to get rid of.

C21+ Costa Mesa is a well-respected cannabis business that offers a unique medical cannabis. I believe the business of C21+ will be a positive addition to the Costa Mesa community.

Sincerely,
Bryan Ruiz

From: sean salah
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Cannabis Business Project PA-22-05 1505 Mesa Verde Drive East Date: Sunday, October 15, 2023 6:01:38 PM
Hello,
I am writing to support C21+ 1505 Mesa Verde, Costa Mesa CA 92603 and their PA-22-05 application. I am requesting your denial of the appeal being heard on October 17, 2023, at the City Council meeting. I have lived and worked in Costa Mesa all my life with most of my time being spent on or near Harbour Blvd. As a local, I have watched the city grow from a young age to now a working adult and have always supported businesses to help the community. I support cannabis in the city of Costa Mesa and the opening of C21+. C21+ Costa Mesa is a helpful and well-respected business in the community that can only have a positive impact.

The opening of C21+ Costa Mesa would be a great addition to the economy and community of Costa Mesa.

Sincerely,
Sean Salah
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

To: City Council Members and City Planning Staff
Re: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Costa Mesa, SCCC Group Holdings, Cannabis Retail Denial of Appeal
Dear City Council Members and City Planning Staff,
I'm Bo Tao, CTO at Atrium Scientific Group, Inc. in Garden Grove, CA. Our team of dedicated scientists pioneers cutting-edge research in cannabinoid-based formulations, personal, and oral care advancements. With a deep commitment to scientific excellence, we've harnessed unique insights into the transformative potential of cannabinoids. Through our innovations, we've seen the positive impact on countless lives. Fueled by this belief, we are leading the way in redefining wellness standards, aiming to elevate well-beings.

I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for PA-22-05, the proposed C21+ Costa Mesa cannabis retail project by SCCC Group Holdings.

I urge you to deny the appeal and support the will of the people as expressed through Measure Q.

Thank you for your dedication to our democratic ideals, and the well-being of our people.

Sincerely,
Bo Tao | CTO
/gid00050/gid00050/gid00050/gid00163/gid00028/gid00047/gid00045/gid00036/gid00048/gid00040/gid00046/gid00030/gid00036/gid00163/gid00030/gid00042/gid00040/gid00132/gid00131/gid00139/gid00138/gid00132/gid00001/gid00004/gid00028/gid00043/gid00036/gid00047/gid00028/gid00039/gid00001/gid00002/gid00049/gid00032/gid00041/gid00048/gid00032/gid00164/gid00001/gid00008/gid00028/gid00045/gid00031/gid00032/gid00041/gid00001/gid00008/gid00045/gid00042/gid00049/gid00032/gid00164/gid00001/gid00004/gid00002/gid00001/gid00140/gid00133/gid00139/gid00135/gid00134/gid00001/gid00001/gid00194/gid00001/gid00001/gid00134/gid00131/gid00136/gid00140/gid00131/gid00001/gid00004/gid00042/gid00030/gid00035/gid00036/gid00046/gid00032/gid00001/gid00004/gid00036/gid00045/gid00030/gid00039/gid00032/gid00164/gid00001/gid00014/gid00048/gid00045/gid00045/gid00036/gid00032/gid00047/gid00028/gid00164/gid00001/gid00004/gid00002/gid00001/gid00140/gid00133/gid00136/gid00137/gid00134 /gid00020/gid00004/gid00010/gid00006/gid00015/gid00021/gid00010/gid00007/gid00010/gid00004/gid00001/gid00008/gid00019/gid00016/gid00022/gid00017 From: Wendy Chavarria
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ costa mesa, SCCC group holdings, cannabis retail denial of appeal Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 3:39:08 PM
To: City Council Members and City Planning StaffRe: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Costa Mesa, SCCC Group Holdings, Cannabis RetailDenial of Appeal
Dear City Council Members and City Planning Staff,
I am writing to express my wholehearted support for PA-22-05, the proposed C21+ Costa Mesa cannabis retail project by SCCC Group Holdings.

I firmly believe that this project aligns with our community's wishes by approving Measure Q, and economic interests, and it should proceed without any hindrance.

Denying the appeal against this project is crucial for the growth and prosperity of our community and commitment to the voters.

I urge you to uphold their decision and deny the appeal, allowing this beneficial project to move forward.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,
Wendy Chavarria
760-403-3810
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Michael Le
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail Denial of Appeal Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 9:43:35 AM
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Michael and I am currently working as a community pharmacist in a busy metropolitan area. I interact with numerous patients daily, most of which have chronic conditions that require lifelong treatment. Of these treatments, the most problematic seem to be pain management medications due to the numerous adverse reactions and high risk for dependency, even with acute use. As a healthcare practitioner who sees this rapidly growing issue in our local communities daily, I fully support exploring alternative avenues to treating chronic pain. Medicinal cannabis has shown promising results in reducing symptoms and improving quality of life for patients with many conditions including chronic pain. With the current opioid epidemic, it is essential to approach medicinal cannabis with rigorous research and responsible regulation to optimize its therapeutic potential. C21+ does just this with their purpose and plan of action. The team at C21+ will be able to provide compassionate and effective care to those who require it most in the local and surrounding communities it serves.

I fully support C21+ in their endeavors to provide high-quality, science-based medicinal cannabis treatment options to address patients’ unique healthcare needs.

Thank you,
Michael Le, PharmD
714-797-5477
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: andrew minard
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05; C21+ Cannabis Retail Denial of Approval Date: Friday, October 13, 2023 7:08:37 PM
City Council Members,
My name is Andrew and I have been a pharmacy technician with over ten years of experience in the long-term and hospice care pharmacies. I interact mostly with patients who experience end stage organ failure or cancer. Cancer patients struggle to receive adequate care during their chemotherapy treatments for anxiety and depression, severe pain, nausea and vomiting, and loss of appetite due to the numerous drug interactions traditional pharmaceutical products exhibit. Terminally ill patients may face obstacles when attempting to receive adequate pain management and comfort care. The role of medicinal cannabis as a viable option for these patient populations allows us to minimize drug interactions and adverse effects while providing sympathetic support care for our patients who need it most. The application of medicinal cannabis is seldom seen in clinical settings due to stigma and limited research and limited accessibility to these products. C21+ is the innovative cannabis entity that will pave the way to establish safe and effective adjunctive therapy to our most vulnerable patients. I am hopeful and excited to see the collaborative development between traditional pharmaceutical drug treatments with medicinal cannabis products.

I support C21+ in their endeavors and sincerely hope that each council member recognizes the value and significance of the establishment of this practice to serve the local community and to open pathways for innovation.

Thank you,
Andrew Minard
Pharmacy Manager
Phone #760-680-1852
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Lisa Cohen
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Costa Mesa, SCCC Group Holdings, Cannabis Retail Date: Friday, October 13, 2023 4:26:58 PM
Dear City Council Members and City Planning Staff,

I am writing to express my wholehearted support for PA-22-05, the proposed C21+ Costa Mesa cannabis retail project by SCCC Group Holdings.

I firmly believe that this project aligns with our community's wishes by approving Measure Q, and economic interests, and it should proceed without any hindrance.

Denying the appeal against this project is crucial for the growth and prosperity of our community and commitment to the voters.

I urge you to uphold their decision and deny the appeal, allowing this beneficial project to move forward.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,
L. Cohen
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Michele Havner
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Costa Mesa, SCCC Group Holdings, Cannabis Retail Date: Friday, October 13, 2023 4:23:59 PM
Dear City Council Members and City Planning Staff,

I am writing to express my strong support for PA-22-05, the proposed C21+ Costa Mesa cannabis retail project by SCCC Group Holdings. It is imperative that we honor the decision made by the voters through the approval of Measure Q.

I urge you to stand firm in your commitment to the voters and deny the appeal against this project.

Thank you for your dedication to our community.

Sincerely
Michele Havner
c: 770.355.8504
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: mt meza
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Costa Mesa, SCCC Group Holdings, Cannabis Retail Date: Friday, October 13, 2023 4:21:45 PM

Dear City Council Members and City Planning Staff,

I urge you to stand firm in your commitment to the voters and deny the appeal against this project.

Thank you for your dedication to our community.

Sincerely,
Misha Meza
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: allen oh
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail Denial of Appeal Date: Friday, October 13, 2023 1:26:26 PM
Dear City of Costa Mesa,

I support C21+ Costa Mesa. As an entrepreneur and gas station/convenience store owner, I am active in my local community and witness the ebbs and flows of patrons through my store. I interact with a diverse range of people and I support the emergence and development of licensed cannabis stores. It increases traffic flow, benefitting businesses like mine, and the improvements made on their properties enhance aesthetics – leading to safer, more brightly lit areas.

Allen Oh
Phone # 661-476-2436
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: arely ortiz
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail Denial of Appeal Date: Friday, October 13, 2023 10:17:08 AM

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to you as a pharmacy technician with firsthand experience witnessing the devastating effects of high-abuse potential scheduled drugs such as benzos and opioids. Every day, I interact with patients who, despite their best intentions, find themselves in a cycle of dependency on these medications. It is not uncommon to encounter patients who become aggressive, irritable, or exhibit withdrawal symptoms when there’s a delay in their prescription or if they’ve run out of their medication. These are not inherently “bad” people, they are individuals caught in the grip of powerful drugs that can alter behavior and judgement.

Given this backdrop, I firmly believe that we need to explore and support alternative therapeutic options, and medicinal cannabis stands out as a promising candidate. Scientific literature and anecdotal evidence suggest that cannabis can offer relief for a variety of conditions, often with fewer side effects and a lower potential for abuse compared to traditional scheduled drugs.

I urge you to support C21+ and their personalized cannabis program. By doing so, we as a community can take a significant step towards a more compassionate approach to patient care.

Arely Ortiz
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Thao Nguyen
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail Denial of Appeal Date: Thursday, October 12, 2023 10:15:16 PM
Hello,
As the Pharmacist in Charge at a major pharmacy chain, I ensure safe and effective dispensing of medications to patients, always prioritizing their health and well-being. It is with this commitment to patient care in mind that I express my strong support for C21+ and its endeavors in the medicinal cannabis industry.

Over the years, I have observed a growing number of patients seeking alternative treatments to manage their health conditions. Traditional pharmaceuticals, while effective for many, may not always be the best solution for every individual. The potential of medicinal cannabis as proposed by C21+ can fill a significant gap in our healthcare system.

I commend C21+’s commitment to investing in the community and their property. Such investments are not only promises of local economic growth, but also for the industry at large.

Regulations set forth by the State of California are amongst the strictest in the nation and ensures that cannabis products meet the highest standards of quality and safety. Their initiative to be the first dispensary to offer personalized cannabis is a testament to their dedication to patient-centric care. This approach aligns with the principles we uphold as pharmacists, where individualized treatment plans can lead to better patient outcomes.

Furthermore, the potential of cannabis as a therapeutic alternative can reduce the dependency on certain high-risk medications, leading to safer treatment options for patients. I believe that C21+ Costa Mesa is poised to make a significant positive impact in the realm of medicinal cannabis. Their vision aligns with the broader goals of healthcare professionals like myself, and I wholeheartedly support their endeavors.

Thao Nguyen, Pharm. D.
(714) 797-5477

From: ASHLEY WITT
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail Denial of Appeal Date: Thursday, October 12, 2023 10:15:54 PM

Dear City of Costa Mesa,

My name is Ashley Witt and I was a Pharmacy Technician for over 10 years. I have worked alongside some of the brightest pharmacists and healthcare professionals in our community. I have had the privilege of watching the industry evolve and the introduction of new therapeutic options. It is with this background and understanding that I express my support for C21+ and its endeavors with personalized cannabis.

I have observed over the years a growing interest and demand for alternative therapeutic options among patients. Many seek beyond traditional pharmaceuticals, especially when it comes to managing chronic pain, anxiety, and other conditions.

C21+’s approach to advancing cannabis as a therapeutic alternative addresses undermet needs from patients. Personalizing cannabis has the potential to ensure that patients receive products tailored to their unique needs, maximizing benefits and minimizing potential risks.

I urge the City of Costa Mesa to support C21+ as well.

Ashley Witt
562-277-0164
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: [email protected]
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail Denial of Appeal Date: Thursday, October 12, 2023 10:27:58 PM
Dear sir or madam,

As an SVP Information Security Officer of a community bank, I am deeply entrenched in the world of technology and security. I’ve dedicated my career to understanding the intricacies of systems, networks, and the vast digital landscape. While my expertise may seem distant from the realm of cannabis, I believe that my unique perspective offers a compelling case for its support.

In the tech industry, we often emphasize the importance of innovation, adaptability, and the pursuit of better solutions. Similarly, I the realm of healthcare and medicine, it’s crucial to remain open to alternative treatments that can revolutionize patient care. Cannabis, with its long list of therapeutic potentials, represents one such promising alternative.

From a security viewpoint, the regulated and responsible use of cannabis can lead to safer communities. I’m proud that one of my Bank’s branches is located in the city of Costa Mesa. By moving into regulated and controlled environment, we can leverage technology to track, authenticate, and ensure the safe distribution of cannabis products. The technology applications and resulting economic impact are abound.

As someone who values innovation and potential of technology to drive positive change, I support C21+ and their initiatives in exploring the therapeutic applications of cannabis.

Kevin Tsuei
(714) 697-0300

From: Clevenger, Salena
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail Denial of Appeal Date: Friday, October 13, 2023 8:16:11 AM
Dear City Council Members,
I obtained my doctorate of pharmacy in 2021 and currently work as a community pharmacist. I have worked in community pharmacy for over 8 years as a technician and now a pharmacist. I interact with patients daily, many struggling with substance abuse that lead to detrimental consequences. We, as community pharmacists, are the most accessible healthcare professionals for the general public. I see firsthand the failure of traditional therapeutic treatments for anxiety and depression, other mood or psychological disorders, or pain management leading to substance abuse. After being introduced to the project by the team at C21+ and their involvement with combining cannabinoids and TMS/neurofeedback, I am extremely hopeful and supportive of their innovative approach to help patients. As a young, motivated healthcare professional, I would love to see C21+ thrive in their medicinal cannabis journey and possibly even open the doors to pharmaceutical cannabis so we can combine traditional and novel treatments to ensure the best clinical outcomes for our patients.

I fully support C21+ in their efforts to push beyond the limits of retail cannabis and open new doors for research and advancements in the field of medicinal cannabis.

Sincerely,
Salena Clevenger, PharmD.
(219) 746-0940
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: GREEN, BRENDA
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 1:30 PM
To: TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Support of PA-ss-05, C21 + Cannabis Retail

Brenda Green
City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
714/754-5221
E‐mail correspondence with the City of Costa Mesa (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may, therefore, be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the act.

From: Pat Lacey <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 1:16 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: FW: Support of PA‐ss‐05, C21 + Cannabis Retail

Hi Brenda and Stacy,

I am writing in support of C21+ 1505 Mesa Verde Costa Mesa CA 92626 and their PA-22-05 application. I have worked in the city of Costa Mesa for over 30 years and I support allowing the cannabis trade in the city as the tax revenue can benefit many programs. I specifically support the location at 1505 Mesa Verde as it is not on a major street and I feel C21+ Costa Mesa will be operated by a well-respected cannabis business operator that will provide unique products for medical purposes.

Sincerely,

Pat Lacey

From: Zeinab Elnagar <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 4:32 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Fwd: Cannabis Business Project PA‐22‐05 1505 Mesa Verde Drive East

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Zeinab Elnagar <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 10:16 PM
Subject: Cannabis Business Project PA‐22‐05 1505 Mesa Verde Drive East To: <[email protected]>

Dear City Council Members and Staff,

My name is Zeinab Elnagar, a 76‐year‐old resident of the senior living apartments at 1500 Mesa Verde, conveniently located across from the proposed C21+ cannabis store. It is with eager anticipation and wholehearted support that I write to you regarding C21+ and the PA‐22‐05 application, hoping that the appeal to be addressed on October 17th will be denied.

Ever since learning about it, our senior community is excited about these proposed plans. The advent of medical cannabis has been important in managing my health and pain levels, offering a significantly safer and more effective alternative to potent narcotics. Its profound impact on enhancing the quality of life, particularly amongst my age demographic, is undeniable.

The potential establishment of C21+, directly across from my residence, fills me with excitement and hope. This promises not only easy, direct access to medical cannabis for myself and my fellow residents but also improved well‐ being for our wider community.

I implore you to consider the holistic benefits that the approval of C21+ and the PA‐22‐05 application can bring to Costa Mesa, paving the way for a future where our community has access to healthier and joy‐inducing alternatives to manage their varied health challenges.

2 Warm regards,
Zeinab Elnagar
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Hope Ayoub <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 2:44 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Denial of Appeal
To: City Council Members and City Planning Staff
Re: Support for PA‐22‐05, C21+ Cannabis Retail
Denial of Appeal

Dear City Council Members and City Planning Staff,

I am writing to express my strong support for C21+ located at 1505 Mesa Verde, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, and their PA‐22 ‐
05 application.

I kindly request that you deny the appeal currently scheduled for discussion at the October 17th City Council meeting. As a longstanding resident of Costa Mesa and an advocate for responsible business practices in our community, I firmly believe that C21+ is a valuable addition to our city.

I have been working in Costa Mesa for 6 years and have had the privilege of witnessing the positive transformation and growth of our city. Over the years, I have seen the benefits of embracing businesses that contribute to our local economy, provide jobs, and operate responsibly. C21+ exemplifies these qualities and has my full support.

C21+ has established a strong reputation as a respected cannabis business that offers unique, high‐quality medical cannabis products. Their commitment to safety, compliance with state and local regulations, and dedication to providing a safe and welcoming environment for customers are commendable. I believe that C21+ will not only serve the medical needs of our community but will also contribute to the local economy, generating revenue that can be reinvested in the betterment of Costa Mesa.

The cannabis industry has evolved significantly in recent years, and C21+ represents the kind of responsible and forward‐thinking enterprise that aligns with the values of our community. I am confident that their presence in Costa Mesa will have a positive impact and will help further destigmatize the use of cannabis for medical purposes.

Sincerely,
Hope Ayoub
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Thomas Calva <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 4:03 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Cannabis Business Project PA-22-05 1505 Mesa Verde Drive East To: City Council Members and City Planning Staff
Re: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail
Denial of Appeal

I am writing in support of C21+ 1505 Mesa Verde Costa Mesa CA 92626 and their PA-22-05 application. We are requesting your denial of the appeal being heard at the October 17th City Council meeting. My name is Thomas J. Calva & I am a Real Estate Broker and have worked and lived in Costa Mesa for over 13 years. I support cannabis in the city of Costa Mesa. C21+ Costa Mesa is a well-respected cannabis business that offers a unique medical cannabis. I believe the business of C21+ will be a positive addition to the Costa Mesa community.

Sincerely,
Thomas J. Calva
Broker
(951)255-7477

Send To: [email protected]
Subject Line: Cannabis Business Project PA-22-05 1505 Mesa Verde Drive East CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Abdel Rahman Ali <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 5:04 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: C21+
I am writing in support of C21+ 1505 Mesa Verde Costa Mesa CA 92626 and their PA-22-05 application. We are requesting your denial of the appeal being heard at the October 17th City Council meeting. My name is Abdelrahman Ali I have worked in the area for 7 years and my mother goes to her doctor there for over 14 years. I support cannabis in the city of Costa Mesa. C21+ Costa Mesa is a well-respected cannabis business that offers a unique medical cannabis. I believe the business of C21+ will be a positive addition to the Costa Mesa community

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Ashton Sal <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 5:59 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail Denial of Appeal I am writing in support of C21+ 1505 Mesa Verde Costa Mesa CA 92626 and their PA-22-05 application. We are requesting your denial of the appeal being heard at the October 17th City Council meeting. I’m a current resident of Costa Mesa. I support cannabis in the city of Costa Mesa. C21+ Costa Mesa is a well-respected cannabis business that offers a unique medical cannabis. I believe the business of C21+ will be a positive addition to the Costa Mesa community.

Sincerely,
Ashton salah
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: GREEN, BRENDA
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 12:59 PM
To: TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail Denial of Appeal

From: A MAGANA <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 12:54 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Support for PA‐22‐05, C21+ Cannabis Retail Denial of Appeal

To: City Council Members and City Planning Staff
Re: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail
Denial of Appeal

I am writing in support of C21+ 1505 Mesa Verde Costa Mesa CA 92626 and their PA-22-05 application. We are requesting your denial of the appeal being heard at the October 17th City Council meeting. I support cannabis in the city of Costa Mesa. C21+ Costa Mesa is a well-respected cannabis business that offers a unique medical cannabis. I believe the business of C21+ will be a positive addition to the Costa Mesa community.

Sincerely,
Aida Magaña

Send To: [email protected]
Subject Line: Cannabis Business Project PA-22-05 1505 Mesa Verde Drive East

‐‐
Dee Magana
2 Nash Auto, Inc.
[email protected]
PH:714.435.4000
FX:714.979.7435
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Tammy Matthews <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 8:50 AM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Fwd: Cannabis Business Project PA-22-05 1505 Mesa Verde Drive East

To: City Council Members and City Planning Staff
Re: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail
Denial of Appeal

I am writing in support of C21+ 1505 Mesa Verde Costa Mesa CA 92626 and their PA-22-05 application. We are requesting your denial of the appeal being heard at the October 17th City Council meeting. I have worked in the area for approximately 20 months and I walk by this address multiple times a day. I support cannabis in the city of Costa Mesa.

C21+ Costa Mesa is a well-respected cannabis business that offers a unique medical cannabis. I believe the business of C21+ will be a positive addition to the Costa Mesa community.

Sincerely,
Tammy Mathews
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Robert Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 9:41 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail Denial of Appeal Hello, my name is Robert Miller and I am writing this letter in support of C21+, and in benefit for my brother, Steven Miller. I am 59 years old and a Wimbledon Village resident in Costa Mesa. My brother Steven has been using cannabis to help with his anxiety and depression for over 15 years. He is better because of it. I support PA‐22‐05 and I hope you will deny the appeal.

I am writing in support of C21+ 1505 Mesa Verde Costa Mesa CA 92626 and their PA‐22‐05 application. We are requesting your denial of the appeal being heard at the October 17th City Council meeting. I am part of a real estate firm, Tidemark Real Estate Services, and have been working in and around Costa Mesa for over six years.

I support cannabis in the city of Costa Mesa. C21+ Costa Mesa is a well‐respected cannabis business that offers a unique medical cannabis. I believe the business of C21+ will be a positive addition to the Costa Mesa community.

Sincerely,

Will Greubel
Vice President
Tidemark Real Estate Services

D: (714) 614-7623
O: (949) 561-1900
E: [email protected]
W: www.tidemarkrealestate.com

3188 Airway Ave., Bldg A
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Lic.: 02039807 | Corp. Lic.: 02185646

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.

I am writing in support of C21+ Costa Mesa and their PA-22-05 application. We are requesting your denial of the appeal being heard at the October 17th City Council meeting. I am a student and resident of Costa Mesa and study in medicine, I know how valuable cannibus is to the elderly community living in Costa Mesa and how addictive narcotics can be to the elderly. This is an alternative our community deserves and voted for.

I have been living in Costa Mesa for the past 15 years and know that this community deserves to vote for choices we need in our community rather than prescription drugs that can take a toll on ones kidneys and liver. My grandma passed away from Kidney failure, I support Cannibus and these businesses that will provide our community a better choice to relief pain and live again.

I support cannabis in the city of Costa Mesa. C21+ Costa Mesa is a well-respected cannabis business that offers a unique medical cannabis. I believe the business of C21+ will be a positive addition to the Costa Mesa community.

Sincerely,

Raian Abadallah

Warm regards,
Zeinab Elnagar
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Steven <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 7:30 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail Denial of Appeal To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to express my support for C21+ Costa Mesa and the responsible use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes.

As someone who has personally benefited from its therapeutic properties, I can attest that it has helped me relieve anxiety and improve my mood. I believe C21+ Costa Mesa's personalized cannabis offering is unique and that many will benefit.

Steven Miller
949‐431‐0126
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: mia salah <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 10:02 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Cannabis Business Project PA-22-05 1505 Mesa Verde Drive East Dear City Council Members and Staff,
My name is Shannon and I was born and raised in the city of Costa Mesa. I am writing to you in earnest support of C21+ in Costa Mesa in accordance with the PA-22-05 application. I am a student at OCC, just across from Mesa Verde, where the new plans are being proposed. I feel an obligation and urgency to express my hope that you will deny the appeal which will be heard at the city council meeting on October 17th.

Having grown up in Costa Mesa all my life, I am aware that a large composition of our demographic are senior citizens. Unfortunately, the only way the elderly are told to manage their pain is through heavy narcotics and pain pills. My grandmother is a victim to this horrible epidemic. She suffers from chronic pain, and the only thing that truly subsides her pain is medical cannabis. Because of the miracle of medical cannabis, my grandmother is able to treat her symptoms with a non-addictive and healthier alternative to narcotics. She is happier, more lively, and can finally spend quality time with us without constant and chronic pain.

I believe many others within the community, just like my grandma, would benefit greatly from C21+. I strongly urge you to pass the PA-22-05 application and allow for the use of medical cannabis in our community. When we are happier and healthier as a community, our city benefits as a whole.

Sincerely,
Shannon S.

My in laws suffer from some serious illnesses and have to visit these dispensaries for medicine to soothe/alleviate their pain and discomfort. I support cannabis in the city of Costa Mesa. C21+ Costa Mesa is a well-respected cannabis business that offers a unique medical cannabis. I believe the business of C21+ will be a positive addition to the Costa Mesa community.

Sincerely,
Mary Ruiz

Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Mohamed <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 6:23 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Cannabis Business Project PA-22-05 1505 Mesa Verde Drive East To: City Council Members and City Planning Staff
Re: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail
Denial of Appeal

My name is Moe Ahmed, I am writing in support of C21+ 1505 Mesa Verde Costa Mesa CA 92626 and their PA-22-05 application. We are requesting your denial of the appeal being heard at the October 17th City Council meeting.I have been working in the city of costa mesa for the past 12 years. I support cannabis in the city of Costa Mesa. C21+ Costa Mesa is a well-respected cannabis business that offers a unique medical cannabis. I believe the business of C21+ will be a positive addition to the Costa Mesa community.

Sincerely,

Mo Ahmed

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Omar Salah <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 6:10 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail Denial of Appeal Hello City Counsel Members and Planning Staff,
I am writing in support of C21+ 1505 Mesa Verde Costa Mesa CA 92626 and their PA-22-05 application. We are requesting your denial of the appeal being heard at the October 17th City Council meeting. I have lived here and gone to school in Costa Mesa for my whole life and my family has businesses here. Cannabis is something that is used medically in my family for several family members who suffer from different physical conditions as well as some who suffer from mental conditions. My grandmother is someone who uses cannabis regularly to help her with her pain since she is older and suffers from arthritis and joint pain. Having a place where she can go nearby to get her medicine is important since she is not able to drive or walk long distances. I support cannabis in the city of Costa Mesa. C21+ Costa Mesa is a well-respected cannabis business that offers a unique medical cannabis. I believe the business of C21+ will be a positive addition to the Costa Mesa community.

Sincerely,
Omar Salah
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Bryan Ruiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 6:15 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Cannabis Business Project PA-22-05 1505 Mesa Verde Drive East Hello City Council Members and City Planning Staff

I am writing in support of C21+ 1505 Mesa Verde Costa Mesa CA 92626 and their PA-22-05 application. We are requesting your denial of the appeal being heard at the October 17th City Council meeting. My family has lived in Costa Mesa for many generations and we have loved the revamp the city has been getting. The cannabis industry has been funny enough a big part of our family‘s life due to the elderly people in our family that suffer from arthritis.Some who live across the street from this location in the senior living. It gives us a peace of mind knowing that they can travel across the street in close proximity to get some medicinal cannabis when they are in need instead of suffering for periods of time waiting for us to travel and pick something up to help ease the pain they are going through.

Plus with cannabis shop near by bring high security for the neighborhood and the senior living. Helping rid of the homeless situation that we struggle to get rid of.

C21+ Costa Mesa is a well-respected cannabis business that offers a unique medical cannabis. I believe the business of C21+ will be a positive addition to the Costa Mesa community.

Sincerely,
Bryan Ruiz

Sincerely,
Leila Dablan

Leila Dablan
Global Payments Consultant
Mobile: 949-590-2132
Connect with me on Linkedin

To: City Council Members and City Planning Staff
Re: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail
Denial of Appeal

I believe this business will bring good traffic & great revenue to improve our City’s revenue.

Sincerely,
EZ Salah

Subject Line: Cannabis Business Project PA-22-05 1505 Mesa Verde Drive East

Thank You
Yours,

EZ Salah
Nash Auto, Inc.

Cell (949)394-5093
Office (714)435-4000 ext. 1002
[email protected]

Have a *´¨)
¸.∙´¸.∙*´¨) ¸.∙*¨)
(¸.∙´ (¸.∙´ * Wonderful Day :)

To: City Council Members and City Planning Staff
Re: Support for PA-22-05, C21+ Cannabis Retail
Denial of Appeal

City Council Members and City Planning Staff,
My name is Nash Salah, I am the owner of multiple operating properties located in the city of Costa Mesa. I own and directly operate Nash Auto located at 2665 Harbor Blvd which has given business to many of our Costa Mesa residents over the years. I have been conducting and investing my entire life and my businesses in our Beloved City of Costa Mesa. I feel that I owe the city a great deal of love and appreciation for everything it has given me. I am happy to be able to give back to the city through millions of tax dollars collected through my business, to which I’ve been so delighted to have seen spent on the beautiful development of our city for as long as I’ve contributed to the community.

I am writing on behalf of our company to provide important information regarding our property located at 1505 Mesa Verde Plaza. I am the owner of this parcel and I am in full support of the C21+ Costa Mesa location.

In 2017, we acquired this property with the purpose of expanding our existing business operations. The building, which was approximately 5900 square feet in size, was already occupied by four tenants at the time of purchase. Upon acquiring the property, we immediately communicated our plans for the building to the existing tenants, making it clear that they would eventually need to vacate to allow for our expansion project. To ensure a smooth transition, we offered all the tenants a two-year lease at a below-market rate. This extended lease period was intended to give them sufficient time to find suitable alternative locations for their businesses.

In 2019, two significant events occurred: first, we received preliminary approval for our project from the city of Costa Mesa, and second, the leases for all four tenants expired. However, due to unexpected delays in the approval process, we decided to offer the tenants a month-to-month rental option at the same reduced rate. This decision was made to accommodate our tenants through the ongoing expansion project. Subsequently, in 2021, we were presented with an opportunity to lease the entire building to Cannabis 21, a new tenant who had plans to make significant improvements to the property. After careful consideration, we agreed to the terms and finalized a lease agreement with them.

Unfortunately, in 2022, one of our tenants, who had been occupying half of the building, chose to vacate the premises. As part of our agreement with C21+ Costa Mesa, we were required to keep the location unoccupied until they obtained final approval from the city of Costa Mesa. Despite the financial impact of this vacancy, we remained committed to fulfilling the obligations of our new lease agreement.

Throughout this entire process, we have maintained transparency with all our tenants regarding our plans for the building and the temporary nature of their tenancy. When the initial lease contracts expired in 2019, we made it unequivocally clear that we would not be renewing any leases, and that the tenants were renting on a month-to-month basis until we could proceed with our expansion project.

To assist our remaining tenants during this period of transition, we have engaged in conversations with them to offer any support they may require. As part of our commitment to helping them find new locations, we have promised to provide them with a 60-day notice, giving them ample time to secure suitable spaces for their businesses.

After August 14, when the Planning Commission voted to move forward with our project, we sent out the notice to our tenants as we promised them. 30 days after receiving our notice. they were all able to secure another location to which they had already moved. All the tenants had moved out except one which will move out at the end of October. We truly believe that we have acted in good faith and have done everything in our power as responsible business owners to support our tenants throughout this time of change.

We have also met with the adjacent business park owner, Mark Les, who is filing the appeal. I graciously held the meeting at my place of business and gave him the opportunity to discuss his concerns and offer a common meeting ground for our businesses to co-exist. In the meeting we offered to work with Mr. Les on his concerns, including parking and having our security keep a careful eye on his property. A lot of our offers were not accepted, but we did assure Mr. Les that we would keep an ongoing dialogue and we are committed to being a good neighbor.

Additionally, I believe C21+ is a legitimate business that is good for the city of Costa Mesa.

They offer a unique medical angle to their business that will be a positive addition to the city.

Furthermore, they are going to improve the site and the building by doing major renovations to the current outdated and old building giving Mesa Verde a whole new look. In addition, it will provide a great security to the area. We vetted them thoroughly and we believe they are an exceptional operator in the space. We are thrilled that they will potentially be occupying our property and adding a great retail offering to the citizens of Costa Mesa.

If you have any further questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,
Nash Salah
CELL:714-724-6565
EMAIL: [email protected]
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Nash Walker <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 6:02 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Cannabis Business Project PA-22-05 1505 Mesa Verde Drive East Attachments: City Council Members and City Planning Staff.docx Please see the attachment,

Nash Salah
President
office:(714) 435-4000
Cell : (714) 724-6565
Nash Auto Inc.
2665 Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Hazelina Belladora
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: SCCC Group Services Measure Q appeal
Date: Friday, October 6, 2023 3:35:43 PM
Attachments: Cover Letter, Costa Mesa City Council.pdf
C21+ - Mesa Verde Plaza Meeting Letter - City of Costa Mesa.pdf Dear Stacy and Brenda,
Happy Friday, and I hope this message finds you well as we transition to Columbus Day weekend.

Thank you for your courteous attention to this matter and review of the attached documents.

Best regards,
Hazelina Belladora
SCCC Group Services Inc
SCCC Group Holdings LLC
C21 Costa Mesa
949-322-6351
sent via mobile phone app
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department. 1 TERAN, STACY
From: Susan Ihrig <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:09 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Dispensaries
Thank you for making licenses available in Costa Mesa for legal dispensaries. Please disregard requests to limit the number of stores, as such requests tend to come from a place of ignorance and judgment from the same individuals who want unlimited access to alcohol, which causes infinitely more deaths and contributes a lower margin of tax revenue. The free market will determine what the correct quantity is to establish equilibrium. We don’t need more governmental restrictions.

Thank you
Susan Ihrig
2214 Avalon St
Costa Mesa
(949) 929‐1777

TO: CityCouncilMembersandCityPlanningStaff
FROM: SCCCGroupHoldings,C21+CostaMesa- HazelinaBelladora SUBJECT: PlanningApplication22-05
DATE: October4,2023
MynameisHazelinaBelladoraandI amwritingtoyouinregardstoourPlanningApplication22-05thatisbeingappealedandbroughttoyourattentionduringtheOctober17thCityCouncilmeeting.I attachedaletteroutliningameetingwesetupwiththeappellanttoourproject,MarkLes,andoureffortstohearhisconcernsandoffermeaningfulresolutions.MuchlikeourmeetingwithMr. Les,myteamandI arewillingtomeetwithanyofyoutodiscussourapplicationandourcommitmenttobeagoodneighborandbusinessinthecity. Weareeagertopresentourprojectandbelievewewillprovideamuchneededservice,andbeapositiveimpactwithinCostaMesa.

PleaseletusknowifyouwouldliketomeetwithuspriortotheCityCouncilmeeting.

TO: CityPlanningStaff
FROM: SCCCGroupHoldings,C21+CostaMesa
SUBJECT: AttemptedResolutionofConcernsRaisedbyMr. MarkLes, AppellanttoPlanningApplication22-05
DATE: October4,2023
OnSeptember26,2023,ourC21+CostaMesateammetwithMr. Lesandhiswife,Barbara,whofiledanappealagainstourprojectlocatedat1525MesaVerdeDr. East(PlanningApplication22-05).OursincereintentioninrequestingameetingwithMr. Leswastofosterunderstanding,addressconcerns,andseekcommongroundduringthisappealprocess,aligningwithourcommitmenttobeingaresponsiblememberofthecommunity.

Duringourdiscussion,wehighlightedC21+'sextensiveprofessionalexperiencewithinthecannabisindustry, emphasizingourconsistentcompliancewithallcityandstateregulations.AddressingMr. Les'concernsoutlinedinhisappeal,weclarifiedthatnoneofhisexistingtenantshaveoptedtoleaveduetotheintroductionofretailcannabisinthevicinity. Additionally, weoutlinedourplansforsignificantinvestmentinouradjacentsite,ensuringimprovedpublicsafetymeasuresandheightenedfoottrafficthatcouldpotentiallybenefithisbusinesses.

RegardingMr. Les'apprehensionsaboutsecurityandparking,weassuredhimofouradherencetoallcityparkingrequirementsandourplansforenhancedsecurityattheproposedstore.Wehavecommittedtomaintaininganopenchannelofcommunicationwithhimandhistenants,ensuringthatanyfutureconcernsarepromptlyconveyedtoourteamforimmediateresolution.OursecuritypersonnelwillactivelymonitortheadjoiningareaofMesaVerdePlazaandreportanyfindingstoMr. Les,ensuringaproactiveapproachtoaddressingsecurityissues.

Furthermore,weofferedtoarrangemeetingsbetweenourteamandanyofMr. Les'currenttenants.OurgoalistoprovidecomprehensiveinformationaboutC21+'suniquebusinessmodel,especiallyourmedicalmarijuanainitiativesandpro-healthelements.Werecognizetheexistingstigmaaroundcannabisretail,andwearededicatedtodemystifyingitsuse,presentingthefactsaboutitspotentialbenefitsforpatientsseekingalternativestoopioidsandotherpharmaceuticals.

Ouraimistoconveyourcommitmenttooperatingasalegitimate,positive,andresponsibleentitywithintheCostaMesacommunity. Weaspiretobeatrustedalternativemedicineoptionforthecity'sresidents,promotinghealthandwellnesswhilerespectingtheconcernsofourneighbors.

Thankyouforyourattention,andpleasefeelfreetoreachoutforanyfurtherinformation.

From: Kellie Avakian
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: POT SHOPS
Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 9:27:52 PM
Please present my comments to the City Council regarding Pot Shops in Costa Mesa.

Dear Costa Mesa City Council,
I am a long-time Costa Mesa resident. This is where we have raised our 3 children, owned our home, and had our business for over 22 years. I love our city's economic and cultural diversity. I love our small retail businesses and think that's part of our City's uniqueness.

I live near Harbor and Adams and have been saddened and concerned to see the rise and concentration of Retail Pot Shops in our city centers. Their presence discourages me from wanting to shop in those centers and I find it unsafe when I see their proximity to our neighborhoods (including my own).

I understand there are over 50 more pot shops set to be considered for approval by you. Even if it was five more, it would be too many. This changes the style and desirability of our city.

We do not need any more pot shops and the ones we have should be not be located near neighborhoods and prominent retail centers.

Had I known this would be something our city would be embracing, we would not have chosen to invest our lives here.

I hope you will reconsider what you are approving and reverse course. This plan and the decisions you are making will forever change the nature of our city.

Please look beyond the revenue you are enjoying and look to the future of the City and how you are shaping it with the decisions you are making today.

Best regards,
K. Avakian
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: WONG, RANDY
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: Mark Les
Subject: PA 22-05 - Mesa Verde Plaza
Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 11:40:02 AM
Hello,

My name is Randy Wong and I am a tenant in the Mesa Verde Plaza. My brother and I have been here in the complex for over 15 years as small business owners. There are many family businesses in our complex and around the area which setting up a cannabis store next to our complex would be a detriment and not contributing to the community. There are businesses which serve to children in our complex including music studios, art studios, taekwondo, and restaurants. There is also specifically a college and career preparatory here which helps young kids. I would not want to have a business near us where it can have a negative impact or influence on them.

Therefore, I support Mark Les in his objection for opening a cannabis store.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Regards,

Randy Wong Exclusive Agent CA Lic: 0K44793 T: 714-434-5906 F: 833-774-1249 1525 Mesa Verde Dr E Suite 107 Costa Mesa, CA 92626

From: [email protected]
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: No more pot shops!
Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 9:46:19 PM
Hello City Council,
I am a born and raised Costa Mesa resident and am standing with many others appealing for you to NOT allow more pot shops to be opened. I love the Costa Mesa community and am fearful of what might happen to that with the increase of substances that can so easily be abused. Please consider the harm this would cause to Costa Mesa!
Thank you for your consideration,

Giana M.

From: John and Kathy Holden
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: City Council Meeting Regarding PA-22-05
Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 6:56:20 PM
October 16, 2023

City Council
PA-22-05

First, thank you all for your public service. We know you are trying your best to do what is right for the people in our community. I love this quote from Jannette Oke “Those who are employed in public stations ought to be very sensible of the weight and importance of their work and their own insufficiency for it, and then they are qualified for receiving divine instruction by seeking wisdom from God. Please take a minute to consider this.

My wife Kathy and I live in Azulon senior apartments across the street for this proposed location. We spoke with the management at Azulon and they said no one contacted them about this application.

We do not want this application to be approved. We are blessed to live in a city focused on public safety. We understand this is a legal business in California and are dismayed by the number of young adults using Vape Pipes and cannabis edibles coming in and out of the current cannabis businesses like (STIIIZY) (which is just around the around the corner from this proposed location) getting into their cars and then driving away brings grief to our hearts. One appeared to be in an altered state of mind. We also understand there are over 20 applications for cannabis stores which is an over saturation and will adversely affect the quality of life and integrity of our city

There seems to be an epidemic of our younger adults doing what they think is right in their own mind without consideration for anyone else. It is a very sad situation when our first responders must carry Narcan to offset the opioids that are often laced in with cannabis. Considering Public Safety, it does not seem reasonable or beneficial for the wellbeing of the residents in Costa Mesa to have the number of cannabis shops. Security Guards/Bouncers standing in front of opulent store fronts is demoralizing and a bad look for the city. Weighing the cities need for additional tax revenue with the detrimental impact to its citizens is paramount.

When considering the application PA-22-05 please evaluate the following regarding serving the public and keeping the public safe.

1. This location is directly across the street from approximately 400 senior citizens.

2. This location currently had businesses that are now displaced or shuttered.

3. The proposed location is approximately 500 yards from another Cannabis business (STIIIZY)

4. Location is next to a liquor store - Plaza Wine and Spirits.

5. Children come and go from Mesa Verde Plaza next door to this location.

6. There are large numbers of homeless and mentally impaired population in the area.

7. There has been a growing number of reckless driving, motor cycle and car street take overs at night on Mesa Verde East.

8. Irrational behaviors of drivers who are using cannabis with potential addiction and use of other drugs.

9. With the Legalization of Cannibals, has anyone correlated the increase of Fentanyl deaths?

Make no mistake the primary business for this application won’t be an Apothecary as was being presented, their business is to sell dope.

Thank you for your consideration and we pray for Gods leading you to do what is right.

John and Kathy Holden

May the God of Peace equip
you for every good work,
Heb 13:20

From: Tracy CLEVIDENCE
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Cannabis store at 1505 Mesa Verde Dr
Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 4:38:30 PM
Hello,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to having a Cannabis store next to the Mesa Verde Plaza. Cannabis sales are not compatible with the family friendly businesses already operating at this location. It will have a negative impact on this center and neighborhood. I have lived in Mesa Verde for 30 years. I frequent the Mesa Verde Plaza often. There are children of all ages in and out of this plaza and businesses. Please don’t expose them to the unnecessary proliferation of another Cannabis store next door. There are many stores already selling Cannabis in Costa Mesa. This Cannabis location is just Wrong for the wellbeing and safety of our beloved neighborhood Plaza and the families it serves.

Thank you,
Tracy Clevidence
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Costa Mesa Inn
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Cannabis store 1505 appeal.

Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 4:55:46 PM
To whom it may concern,
This is Vimal Gordhan, I’m a representative of the Niru Hotel Group LLC that operates the Costa Mesa Inn on harbor Blvd.

I would like to voice my concern about cannabis store 1505.

I’m supporting Mark Les’s appeal of the store, as I believe this store will attract unwanted transients to the neighborhood.

Thanks you,
Vimal Gordhan
Costa Mesa Inn
Niru Hotel Group LLC
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: John Tupy
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: Cindy Tupy; Bjelland Diane; Tim Bjelland; jorja stewart Subject: Proposed project PA-22-05
Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 2:14:16 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Ms. Green,
As long-time Costa Mesa residents (since 1979), we are concerned that our neighborhoods are not being represented well, for the sake of businesses whose only interest is generating revenue for themselves.

Proposed Project PA-22-05 is one such example. With already three marijuana retail dispensaries within one-half mile of Adams St. and Harbor Blvd, this proposed project seeks to add another, large (6,000 sq. ft.) retail dispensary within walking distance of our neighborhoods (Apartments and homes in the upper Bird streets). Previous City Council communications had assured the residents of Costa Mesa that marijuana dispensaries would only be approved if they were located north of the 405 freeway, away from residential areas. This assurance has clearly gone by the wayside, for the sake of money.

We want to formally state that you (Costa Mesa City Council) are not representing us, or protecting our homes and neighborhoods, if you continue to approve these dispensaries near and within residential neighborhoods in Costa Mesa. I've included a couple of articles/studies (there are hundreds in support of both directions), to help support our concerns for the effect on our homes and families. We look forward to hearing from you on this tomorrow evening.

Do marijuana dispensaries increase neighborhood crime? - CU Denver News https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2808961 Best regards,
John and Cindy Tupy
2785 Bluebird Cir
Do marijuana dispensaries increase
neighborhood crime? - CU Denver News
Guest Contributor
Ten states and the District of Columbia now allow the sale, possession and use of marijuana for recreational pur...

Costa Mesa, CA 92626
John E Tupy | Independent Associate, Director

Costa Mesa, CA
Mobile: (949) 294-6022
https://johnetupy.wearelegalshield.com
Confidentiality Note: This email and any attachment to it is confidential and protected by law and intended for the use of the individual(s) or entity named on the email. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or distribution of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender via return email and delete it completely from your email system. If you have printed a copy of the email, please destroy it immediately.

From: Barbara Abbott
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Opposition to more Cannabis retail in Mesa Verde Neighborhood Date: Friday, October 13, 2023 11:40:07 AM
There are currently 3 cannabis retail stores near Harbor Blvd and and Adams Ave (Stiiizy, Off The Charts and Mr. Nice Guy) in Costa Mesa. As a resident of Mesa Verde I oppose any additional Cannabis stores in within 1 mile of Harbor and Adams along Harbor Blvd and it's side streets including Mesa Verde Dr., Peterson Pl., Merrimac Way, Elm Ave, Ponderosa St., Royal Palm, Village way and Baker St.

Sincerely,
Barbara Abbott
Upper Bird Streets
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Minh Nguyen
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: No more cannabis shops in Costa Mesa
Date: Friday, October 13, 2023 10:51:48 AM
Dear City of Costa Mesa,
Please STOP approving retail cannabis shops in Costa Mesa. I know people say the the city receives revenue from these shops, but it's not worth it. Irvine and other neighboring cities didn't approve to have the cannabis shops in their cities for many reasons. These shops are too close to neighborhoods with families and children and senior living facilities. There are other ways to bring revenue to our cities. Why is Costa Mesa approving so many cannabis shops while other cities are NOT approving them?
Thank you,
Minh Nguyen
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Cindy Massaro
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: City Council Meeting Tuesday 10/17/23
Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 2:40:09 PM
Please present my comments to the City Council re Pot Shops in Costa Mesa.

Dear Costa Mesa City Council,
I live in and love Costa Mesa. This is where we have raised our 3 children, owned our home, and had our business for over 22 years. I love our city's economic and cultural diversity. I love our small retail businesses and think that's part of our City's charm.

I live near Harbor and Adams and have been saddened and concerned to see the rise and concentration of Retail Pot Shops in our city centers. Their presence discourages me from wanting to shop in those centers and it saddens and concerns me when I see their proximity to our neighborhoods (including my own).

I understand there are over 50 more pot shops set to be considered for approval by you. Even if it was five more, it would be too many. This changes the style and desirability of our city.

We do not need any more pot shops and the ones we have should be not be located near neighborhoods and prominent retail centers.

Had I known this would be something our city would be embracing, we would not have chosen to invest our lives here.

I hope you will reconsider what you are approving and reverse course. This plan and the decisions you are making will forever change the nature of our city.

Please look beyond the revenue you are enjoying and look to the future of the City and how you are shaping it with the decisions you are making today.

Best regards,
C.Massaro
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Ann Lyons
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Cannabis Super Store
Date: Saturday, October 14, 2023 1:05:02 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I am not able to attend the upcoming CM City Council meeting, so I am writing to voice my opinion about the Cannabis Superstore you are considering for Mesa Verde.

I am OPPOSED to this location for this store. There are already 3 cannabis distribution stores in a half mile circle around Harbor and Adams. I feel that is already too many for our area in close proximity to schools and families. It is NOT conducive to promoting a family-friendly community.

I understand that the city has approved 62 cannabis applications so far. This seems a bit GREEDY. Our city is already inundated with many sober living homes for recovery, and now you want to keep adding more Cannabis stores to the area.

Are you pro recovery for our city or are you pro drugs for our city? I hope you will vote NO for this superstore, and hope you will stop adding many more to our fine city.

Regards
Ann Lyons
714-350-1968
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Saousan Jarjour
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: Mark Les
Subject: Cannabis Store- Near Mesa Verde Plaza
Date: Sunday, October 15, 2023 8:14:15 AM
Good morning,
My name is Saousan Jarjour, I am the director of Musika Studio in Mesa Verde Plaza -1525 Mesa Verde Drive East.

We are a family owned music school and very proud to be serving our community, families and children in the area where they not only attend family related activities at our school but also attend other family related businesses like Art Steps, Tae Kwon Do and others.

This email is in regards to building a new Cannabis store directly next to the Mesa Verde Plaza.

It is very distressing to hear that the City of Costa is building yet a third store near the plaza, as if 2 are not enough already. We stand against adding one more Cannabis store at such close proximity to the center.

Our families have their children walk to the plaza, bike and many of them enjoy dinners and lunches outside at the amazing restaurants located in the plaza.

It is disappointing that the City of Costa Mesa has decided to ignore the value of families and their safety and instead it is being driven by other motives.

We truly wish you to think of the young families, students and children in the area. Think of the safety of your own citizens.

Ever since the two stores opened nearby, things have shifted a bit and on more than once our employees and clients felt unsafe. More than once, we felt the need to call security.

We appreciate your work and we trust that at the end you will do what is best for the other businesses, families and children of the area. In the end that is what makes Costa Mesa special: How we care for each other.

Best
--
Saousan Jarjour
Musika Studio Director
B.M. Voice- California State University, Fullerton
M.M. Vocal Arts- USC Thornton School of Music
www.musikastudio.us
C: (714) 624-3275
W:(714)852-3630
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: lmarroquin ribcompany.com
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Cannabis Store at 1505 Mesa Verde Drive
Date: Sunday, October 15, 2023 4:31:20 PM
Dear Elected Officials of Costa Mesa,
As a lifetime citizen of Costa Mesa and business owner, I am discouraged to see the proliferation of cannabis shops in my neighborhood. I live in the Upper Birds area in Mesa Verde. There are 5 dispensaries within 2 miles of my home.

This is MORE than enough and I humbly request that you overturn the approval for the cannabis store at 1505 Mesa Verde.

Respectfully,
Laura Ursini Marroquin
Laura Ursini Marroquin
Community Relations & Catering Manager
[email protected]
(949) 631-2110
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Mark Les
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Appeal of PA-22-05
Date: Friday, October 13, 2023 9:49:31 AM
Attachments: Council Supporting Docs.pdf
Dear Members of Costa Mesa City Council:

I am writing regarding my appeal of PA-22-05, a cannabis store at 1505 Mesa Verde Dr. E. I own the property directly abutting the proposed site, Mesa Verde Plaza, a 42 unit neighborhood shopping center. I would like to present new information that was not available and therefore not considered by the Planning Staff during their initial approval of PA-22-05. The Planning Commission also was not aware of this information when they passed PA-22-05. Once this information is shown you will see the use does not meet code as it is within 1,000 feet of a playground and within 600 feet of Youth Centers. Also, to grant a CUP it must be shown that this use is compatible with surrounding properties and not detrimental. This can not be shown because a cannabis store on my property edge is not compatible and will be detrimental to current small businesses specializing in children.

For your reference here is a link to the application
information: https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx? ID=6315955&GUID=1C70F276-E5AD-4A30-8F71-719BB0C15FCC Please also refer to the Council supporting docs attached to this email.

When the Planning Staff checked for sensitive uses within the vicinity of the proposed use they used an outdated zoning map. The zone map in the packet listed the newer Aura Housing Development as C1-Local Business when it had actually been re-zoned in 2016 to R2-MD under the application PA-15-48 and is now a residential use. The development includes a playground which fits all of the requirements of a playground in the City Cannabis Code and is within the 1,000 foot required buffer. This alone disqualifies the cannabis proposal at 1505 Mesa Verde as per ordinance 202109 of the Costa Mesa Cannabis Code.

At least one of my tenants meets the strict Cannabis Code definition of Youth Center and they lie within the 600 foot required buffer. Legacy Escape Rooms has two 1,350 SF suites in my center, and they host regular parties and social gatherings for minors to solve their collaboration games, not unlike a video game arcade the code specifies. In addition, high school recruits at the Marine recruiting office in my center have regular meetings with fitness, bonding and group training in preparation for boot camp in my parking lot, mere feet from the proposed Cannabis entrance.

Planning never considered the detrimental effect an adult only cannabis store would have on the eight businesses in my shopping center directed at children and minors. How could they since the Planning package never even mentioned or considered them. In granting a CUP it is required to show the proposed development would be compatible and not materially detrimental to other properties in the area. Putting the adult-only use of C21+ directly next to a multitude of already existing businesses catering directly to children is not at all compatible and extremely detrimental to those businesses. Parents' perception of the best environment for their kids is what drives decisions. Many parents will not trust dropping their kids off to businesses located directly next to a self-described “cannabis superstore”. This will severely reduce the amount of customers of existing businesses in my center that cater to children, and will certainly put a damper on any new customers.

Nearby cannabis stores have already had negative effect on existing businesses in our area. In Planning testimony, Lollipop Pediatric Dentistry, a neighboring property to Stiiizy, said they would not be renewing their Lease due to parent concerns and observed nuisances. The Compound Pharmacy on Harbor is moving their business to behind Ikea over issues related to being near cannabis. At least one my tenants has already voiced that the opening of this proposed C21+ store will lead to them having to close and relocate their business outside of Costa Mesa. Tenants marketing to families and children are very concerned about how this use right on our property line will affect their ability to keep and attract new business. Keep in mind many small businesses do not feel comfortable voicing their concerns to City officials.

A large 6,000 SF cannabis store right next to my center will have a detrimental effect on my being able to attract child and family oriented businesses. Mesa Verde is a large family oriented community evidenced not only by my own family and child focused mix but by the fact that two large private schools for children opened around the corner on Adams. California Health Department Code prohibits schools within 600 feet of Cannabis. A recently vacated 16 year tenant was a school and that space can now never be replaced with a comparable use. I have had tenants with cannabis exclusions in their leases and tenants not allowed to locate next to cannabis. My leasing potential to schools or businesses marketing to the same demographic will most certainly have a detrimental impact on my property. If I thought otherwise I certainly would have rented to one or more of the over 100 cannabis businesses that approached me to rent at my property, many offering two times and more my stated rent.

I believe the applicant downplayed their potential impact on our neighborhood secondary street of Mesa Verde Dr E. They positioned themselves as specializing in helping people with ailments.

While this may be a part of their business they also advertise on their website as a cannabis superstore with the lowest prices. https://shopc21plus.com/ They estimated 300 or so trips per
day in their application, however, elsewhere in their application packet they stated a similar sized store in San Diego sees 1,000 per day. When opening previous stores, their CEO Sean St. Peter boasted “"We know how to run high-volume stores, as our San Diego SDRC branded locations serve almost 1500 customers per day…”
My parking will certainly be negatively impacted. The customers of the current location next door regularly park in my lot and they generate very light traffic compared to what this Cannabis store will attract. To reach most of their parking you have to go through a legally non-conforming tight 18 foot wide drive to the back of their building. My lot is closer to their front door and easier and safer to get in and out of. My lot is outside of the 50 foot no loitering zone and will be very welcoming for those who want to stand around or sit in their cars possibly sampling purchases. At Stiiizy nearby I witnessed loitering just outside the 50 foot zone and someone sleeping in their car within the 50 foot zone. Keep in mind cannabis security would have no authority over my lot.

Neighbors of recently opened cannabis stores are reporting similar parking and loitering problems that are now their problems to solve.

Good Planning should not allow adult-only businesses right next to children-oriented businesses and should consider the long-term effect on these existing businesses. If adult only businesses carried no stigma there would be no reason to classify them as adult only and restrict their locations. The further prevalence of retail cannabis in this area will remove any family or children oriented businesses from considering locating here, further harming not only my business but the residents of Mesa Verde. This use is non conforming at this location because it violates the code of being within 1,000 feet of a playground and within 600 feet of Youth Centers. Those small independent businesses in my center marketing to children would also be detrimentally harmed.

Thank you for considering this appeal and I am available anytime to discuss over the phone or meet you onsite to discuss further.

Mark Les
Cell - 714-914-4740
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

Playgroundmeans and includes both a publicplaygroundlocated in a city park and a privateplayground. A privateplaygroundshall mean a privately-owned outdoor recreation area, including a tot lot, containingplaygroundequipment or amenities such as swings, slides, sandboxes, or similar installations designed for use by minors and serving either the general public or residents of a development where theplaygroundequipment is located, including residential subdivisions and/or developments such as apartments, townhomes and/or condominium complexes, mobile home parks or other similar residential uses, as well asplaygroundequipment serving registered guests at hotels and motels. A privateplaygrounddoes not include aplaygroundorplaygroundequipment installed at a single-family residence, or play equipment that is part of a privately-owned commercial business or place of worship, or aplaygroundthat is access-controlled during operating hours or does not have direct access from the public right-of-way. A privateplaygrounddoes not include areas designated for use as a playing field or court, pool, or skate facility. 1 2
4 567
Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 9 Chapter 6 §9-485“Playground” Definition 3 "No cannabis retail storefront use shall be located: Within one thousand (1,000) feet from a … playground..." (CMMC, Title 13, Ch. 9, Art., 21 §13-200.93(e)(1) üWithin 1,000 Feet (608 Feet)üPrivately owned recreation areaüContains playground equipmentüServes residents of a developmentüIncludes residential subdivision The Aura Residential Playground Meets ALL tests in the code üNot a Single Family Residence, place of worship or businessüNot Access ControlledüDirect Access from a public right of way (Merrimac way) 12 34
56 7
Zoning Map in application incorrectly lists as C-1 Commercial Highlighted box was rezoned to Residential (R2-MD) in 2016 Youth center means any public or private facility that is primarily used to host recreation or social activities for minors, specifically private youth membership organizations or clubs, social services teenage club facilities, video arcades where ten (10) or more games or game machines or devices are operated or similar amusement park facilities, but does not include dance studios, tutoring, martial arts sfudios or similar type of uses. (Ord. No.16-15, S4, 11-18-16;Ord. No. 1&04, S 2,4-3-18; Ord. No.21- 09, s 3, 6-1*211
Two 1,350 SF Escape Rooms - Parties for kids
Fits definition of Youth Center.

High School tVarine recruits do regular fitness and
bonding for boot camp
)
f,
This property so close often confused as part
of lVlesa Verde Plaza
{ t/(
MVPC21+
My lot more accessible to their front door
C21+MVP
Othercannabisneighborsalready experiencing parking overflow

NOT Medical positioning, this is a COSTCO of Cannabis
Costa Mesa Store will be 5,941 sf equals a SUPER STORE SIZE a
Ouihnt..d LdBr P.i.r, lrEUlrndr of Frodu<lr tnat { F,cc Oclivcry $u^.l..dr ol llocsr A,-rndr EAm{lBls2l+ @
)eE o.lrn y lnau ab.4i , Pio{urr Lrrm' lcrlo.. - Cmrxt
"tt *
li\ *, ,,
California's Canna
Superstore!
I
You'll alwaye g.t the beet prlcnc end produsts at our dlapens.rle. - CUARAT{TEED @
@
tiCl,rur
rr.r,rr E x.!.tr FlFn r 4 lld,Ll,I fllt Al.on l, nlrr kr'O oorl ,rrnr$ nh.l th. talo former baseball player for the San Frarcis€o Giants, and successfill entrepreneur. His background in professiooal spons has giv€n him a competirive edge in business. as it has honed his discipline. team*oi, and perseverance under Fessue.

As a co-founder ofcannarropic, LLC. Mardrcw contributes his expenise in navigding complex projects surcessfully and innovative thinking to the develoFnerr ofnovel cannatropic comp"unOs tfra sjnergize rhe benefits of camabinoids and nooropics for enhanced human bo4v and mind function.

Marhew is an active Member ofthe Fellowship ofChristian Athletes. a prominent organizarion that senes local communities worldwide by engaging and equipping young athletes and their coaches. He utilizes his passion for spfrts to c.trtributc ro rhe orgarization's missioa by designing tournamenrs. ffeadng athledc strategie;. and developing scoring sl sems for various sponing evens.

The other arm ofthis pnwerful paroership arc the co-foundem and co-onrers ofone ofthe largest commercial retail cannabis businesses in Californi4 Cat Ebis 2l*_ As a farnilv-onne4 Veteran-onned and woman-owned blusin€ss. Sean and Tara Sr Perer have put lheir blood. sweat. and tears into developing a successful and unique approach to the cannabis rerail marker.

They are both excited to bring their expertise to operating cannabis retail locarions ro Costa Mess- As co-oEners and C{EO, Sean and Tara bring over 20 years of exprrience as cannabis operators. curenlly managing five high-volume rctail locarions throughout Califomia Their firsr locarion. Cannabis 2l= Mission Valley (formerly SDRC), is anrong the topproducing commercial cannabis retail businesses in Califomia.

Seqn St. Petet
Sean is a CoFounder ofCannabis 2l +, a fremier commercial cannabis retailer olrrating five dispensaries acrors Califomia Their San Diego Mission Vatley srore is dre largesl volume recrcational cannabis op€rdion in Califomia clllrently seeing over 1000 custom€rs per day. Sean specializes in pcrmining and crBating facilities designed for high-volume sales focusing on regulation compliance *.hile dire€tlv worliing with local and sate authoriries.

Sean is a Califomia native bom in Anaheim, CA, joined dre Nav-v our of high schml and served for 5 years as an engineer and land surve.vor including tours in kaq. Kuwai! Guam, and Spain- Leaving the militar).. Sean then worked in the privare sefior as a Land Surveyor until 200t.

Over dre next l0 -r-'ears, Sean focused his atrenaion on the legal city, and sde-approved camabis industrl - creating and operaring multiple successful businesses. incfuding the firsr and most successful medical marijuana dispensaries in San Di€o. The St. Peter's relocaGd and focused on the newly licensed recreational cannabis market in Washinglon stare. Once recreadonal cannabis became eligible for licensing in Califomia. Seat moved bmk home. Since 2016 he has been operating Cannabis 2l - (formerlv known as SDRC) including operadons, licensing. and business development.

Tara 9. Peter
Tara is an equal paftrer and Co-Founder ofCannabis 2l -. With her background in H& palroll. and operations, she specializes in the stafFng and career developmenr ofhigh-volume retail faciliries. This extEnise makes her an ind{sry titan in sEateg,'. With planning and forecasting and a currenr revenue rale ofover S3O,0OO.00O, Tara klows how to make the most ofa grear locdion like rhe ooe secured in Cosra Mesa- As a s€nior leader in the payroll and dara managemelt sysems for Cricka Commtmications. and rhe Universig of San Diego. Tara's highly organized managerial experience fovides crirical structure to every business she has be€n involved in. During her time operating tkee prior dispensaries. she has implemenred numerous emplol-ee training, d@ mansgemenl and record-keeping systems draa sEeamline compliancc with State and local la\r's and regulations- As C2t Co6ta Mesa's Operaioos Officer. Tara will ensul€ that our business operaEs with maximum efticiency and productivity -
7 -7-
coupl€ ofk€Y rEasons, which hclude
Enremety efficiert purchasing and order fulfillment process thank to our unique visibr queue and multi- sation workflow,
Great value at all price poins as C2l - will not be undersol4 Highty trained and comPassionate budrenderieducators'
. Large, uell-rounded culation of products for every siuratiofl comparEd to th€ indusol average customer agein the laa ttrinies per Headset' which irself is hard for mm!' to betieve' C2l customers as a grouP' would measure much older. approrhing theil late 40s'
Orn practical and pragnatic branding. store layout (no -chilling- in the store) aod efEcient workflo*' coupled with our e$ical sEnce to not serve anyon€ und€r 2l tend to limif our appeal ro the younger flower<enric cro*d' Frmr a daily projection standPoinq we rvould anticipate b€tw€en 300 to 320 Adulrs 2lt Pet day' Delivery
C2l. Costa Mesa plans to deliver Cannabis and Cannabis hoducts in line wirh all Califomia state' cit,' ard count, oriinances. a del;ve,)' emplo]'ree ofdre reailer's fuel-efficient vehicles will perform all &liveries ofcannabis g".at erpfoyot a.iivering cannabis will carry a copy ofthe rBtailer's curenr licens€' the employ-ee's goYenuDent- issued identificarion, and an identific*ion badge Delivery will only be offercd to a Physical address not to an address located on publicly ovmed land or any address on land or in a building leas€d b! a public agency' Delivery employees will ensure the cannabis goods are nor visible to the-public The vehicle(s) used for the delivery' "f"-"rlit g*dt *ill be outfiued with a aea]carea ctolai positioning Synem (GIS) device for identi$ing the geogr4hic l-ocation ofdre delivery vehicle. The device will be afExed ro the delivery vehicle and \f,ill remain active and inside ofrbe delivery vehicle during delivery'
While making deliveries, C2l+ Co$a Mesa delivery employees will not carry carnabis goods wonh more than S:,OOO
", *y"rir". Ite delivery service will have a menu available on the \*ebsite' so customers can place orde6 o"er Oe pt one o, online. The cu$omer will *nd all necessary infqmarion and will have a profile created witbin rhe p.irt-i-!" ty""t- The order will go into the slstem and be pulled by an employee at the rEtail faciliq- once the order is filled it uill be placed in an ext bag \ryidt a rec€ip afftxed to the bag- The receipt uill inciude' the name of tbe cu$omer, their assigned ID nunber, deivery aaaress' description ofthe cannabis items' dle tonl amouot paid by dre cugomer including all taxes. narne and address ofrhe faciliq mating tlre delivery' the name and id number of the employee maliing dtc deliY€ry. and the name and id number of the employee lvho prePared,the delivery' The driver *,ill retain an additiorat .opy oiOt r"t-eitr to be sigEd by $e cu$oner upon rcceipt of the delivery' There o'itt L ,p""" proti ted to have thi dare and time wrinen in ofdre specific time the delivery was made' Wtile making delireries ofcannabis goods' emPloyees will onll travel from rhe licensed premises to the delivery address; fiom one delivery address to-anorhet detiverl addrest: or fiom a delivery address back ro C2lr-Costa Mesa's licens€d premises Delivery employee(s) will not deviare from the &livery paths described in this-section' ;;;;;;;A rcsr tuel. or;ehicie ;pai, stoPs' or because road condirions make continued use of lhe route unsafe, impossible, or imprrticaute.
-inen'receiving
dttivery goods ar the proposcd dispensary the vehicle *'ill pull ina u pr*ing ,po, "'hh securi! prcs€nt unload deliery items onto a pull cafl' and enter fis facilit'v with an "trpr"y*i"?".pr.r
dre u-ansacrion. AII deliveries will be made before fte dispensarl opening' Securiry
Security and safeq are al!ra]-s a top priorir)- for all C2 I - locations and C2l - Costa Mesa's plan is inlended to 9 -9-
residendal lock, which are not visible to the public and that pl€vent diversion' th€e loss' hazards' and nuisance according to all sbre and cit, codes. All storage and handling of hazar&us mderials will occur in code-complianr control areas. All vefldors will be prc-scheduled in advance and must pIes€fi Yalid ideotiftcation' Vendqs will otrly be granted access to th. ur"r, ,"qri."d f* Oe rEmoYal ofwaste' All waste rcflovat Yendors will be rtquired to documetrl and track all waste materials removed from tte site' Odor Contol
C2l + Costa M€sa lf,ill maintain odor conEol m6ures cqrsi$ent wifl accePtcd and best availablc cannabis industr,-specific technologies designed to mitigate cannabis odors' ApPlying thes€ conc€pts \xill effectively mitigate cannis odor detection from ouside 6e structure h which rh€ prqos€d businss is to opsrate' lot€rior and cxterior lighting lvill ulilize best management Factices and technologies for reducing glare' lighr pollution, and light mspass onto adjacent prqerties and rhe following sandards:
. Etterior: Exterior lighting syslems will be provided for security purposes in a manner sufficienl lo provide illumination and clear visibiliq to aU outdoor areas of dre premises, ilcluding all points of ingress and egress.

Exterior lightiog witl be statiooarli fult, shielded directed away from adjacenl Propedies and pub[c rights of way, and of an inte$iq cmPdible,,tith rhe neighborhmd. All efl€rior lighting will be Building Code compliant.
. tnt€rior: Interior light s) stems will be fully shielded- including adequate coverings on windows' to confine lig[t and glare lo the interior ofthe structure.

System to itrclude pre-filters. HEPA filten, and carbon fihers so no odors will be detecable ouride ofthe operation's faciliq, anywheIe on adjac€nt hts or public righs'of-way. on or abour dle exterior or inlerior common area walkways, hallways, breezeways, foyers' lobby areas' or any other arrx available for us€ b cornmon te'na s or thc visiting prblic. HVAC with negative at P.essure to help contain odors genffaEd inside from escapiry the building and being detectable ouside or by ncighboring establishments.

Our curcnt locaioos and our facility in Co$a Mesa will deliver state-of-lhe-8rt odor contol to €nsure safety and comfon for all visiting customeas. employees, and neighbors.

Lighting
P or ki ngt'fr afi i c M a n o ge m e n t
The current rctail footprint has a total of27 Pa*ing spoB available wilh 25 ofthEs€ spots being mll-ADA 8nd 2 being ADA compliEtrt. The traffic pafiem has been id€altified to enstrre easy and seamless traffic flow and the parking area will include clear sigrlage ro ensure compliance. 12 -12-
From: Beverly Sanders
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: Don Fisher
Subject: Appeal of PA 22-05 - LTR
Date: Friday, October 13, 2023 11:47:44 AM
Attachments: image001.png
LTR to City of Costa Mesa 2023 10 13.pdf
Good morning:

Please find attached correspondence addressed to the city council members for Costa Mesa in the above-referenced matter.

Thank you.

Beverly Sanders | Legal Assistant
Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP
1900 Main Street, Suite 700 | Irvine, CA 92614
Direct Dial (949) 851-7218 | Fax (949) 851-1554
[email protected] | ptwww.com

This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP that may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you.

I am a resident of Costa Mesa living very close to the proposed new cannabis store. I have some concerns about the safety of the store area and potentially more people smoking marijuana in the immediate area around the store and then driving away onto our streets. Would like to hear how these security risks are being
addressed at the meeting. Please send me an invite to attend the meeting.

Thanks
Michael Pramuk

I am writing in opposition to PA-22-05, a retail cannabis business at 1505 Mesa Verde Dr. East. I am a small business owner and tenant in the adjacent center, Mesa Verde Plaza. I have owned and operated a small family oriented martial arts school here since 2005. We have been teaching in the Costa Mesa area for nearly 40 years.

I am concerned with this new cannabis business opening in such close proximity; as it is a close walk to my business where my clientele is primarily young children and teens. Many of these students often wait and/or walk to and from businesses and homes nearby. There are also several neighboring family oriented businesses that cater to the same customer ages, such as an art school and a music school. I believe a retail cannabis store will pose greater safety and health risk to everyone nearby as well as have a detrimental impact on many long standing community based establishments. Parents might not feel comfortable sending their children out and/or might not feel comfortable living in this area, any longer. I believe it's in the best interest of our local community and their well being, not to allow this type of business, in this area. I'm certain there are many better suited locations for retail cannabis.

I respectfully request that you do not approve the proposed use at 1505 Mesa Verde Dr. E.

Thank you for your time,
Eric Chang
Chief Instructor
Orange County TaeKwonDo
Proudly partnered with the Costa Mesa community teaching life skills and self-defense for 40 years

I wish to tell the Costa Mesa City Council members that I strongly oppose approval for another Cannabis store in our city. Though this drug is legal I consider that it can have dangerous effects. We do not need more of these businesses.

Sincerely yours,

Frances H.

Applegate
3062 Capri Lane
Costa Mesa CA 92626
[email protected]

I am sending you this e-mail to let you know how very upset I am over the possible building of the terrible Cannabis Superstore in Mesa Verde!! The shopping center right next door caters to children and the senior apartments directly across the street would be looking out at all the activity going on at the center!! This is a terrible thing to do to Mesa Verde which we all love and we have so much pride of ownership.

Please don't allow this bill to pass and please protect our families and our neighborhood.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Sincerely, Pat Davis

Pat O'Toole-Davis
Broker/Property Manager
(714) 545-3650
e-mail: [email protected]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Sara Van Dyke <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 4:58 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Opposition to Cannabis Store
To Whomever it May Concern,

Our office was recently informed that there is a Cannabis store that is supposed to go in on Mesa Verde near our office.

We already have a lot of issues with people drinking alcohol in public in front of our office and in and around Mesa
Verde Plaza and it definitely makes it less safe for all the adolescents we work with in our office (we do sports injury rehabilitation).

For this reason, we oppose the location of the shop.

‐‐
Thank you,

Dr. Sara Van Dyke, DC
DASH Chiropractic
1525 Mesa Verde Dr. E #108
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: James Nguyen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 10:56 AM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Oppose PA 22-05
I would like to oppose PA 22‐ 05. It is zone for family and kids and I do not want cannabis in the neighborhood.

Thank you
James Nguyen
714‐657‐5359
Yahoo Mail: Seamless Account Control
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Michael Pramuk <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 8:36 AM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Public Meeting 10/17- 7pm (Cannabis retail store-1505 Mesa Verde Drive E) Hello:

Thanks
Michael Pramuk

I respectfully request that you do not approve the proposed use at 1505 Mesa Verde Dr. E.

Thank you for your time,
Eric Chang
Chief Instructor
Orange County TaeKwonDo
Proudly partnered with the Costa Mesa community teaching life skills and self-defense for 40 years

Sincerely yours,

Frances H.

Applegate
3062 Capri Lane
Costa Mesa CA 92626
[email protected]

Please don't allow this bill to pass and please protect our families and our neighborhood.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Sincerely, Pat Davis

Our office was recently informed that there is a Cannabis store that is supposed to go in on Mesa Verde near our office.

For this reason, we oppose the location of the shop.

‐‐
Thank you,

Thank you
James Nguyen
714‐657‐5359
Yahoo Mail: Seamless Account Control
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: GREEN, BRENDA
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 1:01 PM
To: TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Denial of Appeal

From: Hope Ayoub <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 11:43 AM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>
Subject: Denial of Appeal

To: City Council Members and City Planning Staff
Re: Support for PA‐22‐05, C21+ Cannabis Retail
Denial of Appeal

Dear City Council Members and City Planning Staff,

I am writing to express my strong
support for C21+ located at 1505 Mesa Verde, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, and their PA‐22‐ 05 application.

C21+ has established a strong reputation as a respected cannabis business that offers unique, high‐quality medical cannabis products. Their commitment to safety, compliance with state and local regulations, and dedication to providing
a safe and welcoming environment for customers are commendable. I believe that C21+ will not only serve the medical needs of our community but will also contribute to the local economy, generating revenue that can be reinvested in the betterment of Costa Mesa.

In conclusion, I kindly urge you to support the PA‐22‐05 application for C21+ and deny the appeal during the upcoming City Council meeting. It is my belief that C21+ will be a valuable asset to our community, and I look forward to witnessing the benefits it will bring to Costa Mesa.
2 Sincerely,
Hope Ayoub
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Brad Warrick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 9:35 AM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Retail Marijuana Shops
To whom it may concern;

We are very upset at all of the pot shops that are popping up in Costa Mesa! There are 5! On Harbor Blvd alone, with another one trying to get into Mesa Verde Center, and Nectar on Newport Blvd. This is absolutely stupid and reckless! There are schools, family gathering spaces and other businesses that are going to be hurt by this, as well as thinking of all of the people driving around stoned! Please take this into consideraƟon and STOP the approval of these detrimental businesses in our city!!!

Thank You,
Brad Warrick
Warehouse and Distribution Manager
DAVISON + MOORE
1567 Sunland Lane
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714.309.5045 – Mobile
949.252.0101 – Main
949.252.0707 – Fax
www.davisonandmoore.com

Sincerely,
Kelli and Brad Warrick
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Charles Purcell <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2023 8:28 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Pot Shops
I’m a 48 year resident of Costa Mesa and would never have imagined our wonderful City becoming the cannabis capital of Orange County. This is the worst idea an incompetent City Council has proposed in all my years involved with our City. I will be out of town on Oct 17th and want to go on record as being strongly opposed to approving all these pot shop applications. It's beyond my imagination how any person, or City Council can possibly view this onslaught as being good for our City. Anything that provides another dollar to our coffers is OK with the majority of our current City Council.

Enough is enough! Please don’t approve any more of these applications.

A very concerned citizen.

Charles (Rus) Purcell
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: vk <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 7, 2023 8:29 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Planning Application 22-05
This is a letter regarding the application for the opening of a cannabis dispensary at 1505 Mesa Verde De East.

I am currently living across the street from the proposed location and am strongly against this proposal and do not want it to be approved.

We are a 55+ and over community that has seen our area change in the last several months to a dangerous and scary place to live. The homeless situation is increasing and the roads a very unsafe to drive. Even walking on the sidewalks are unsafe walking past people passed out from alcohol and drug use. There is already a speeding issue that has been a huge problem on Mesa Verde DR! Why would we encourage further use of a substance to make our area more of a dangerous place to live?
With the recent opening of two dispensaries in less than a half a mile from the proposed location, what is the need for a third?! Will we become the place known as Marijuana City? Is this what the council members are wanting Costa Mesa to be viewed as? Will we become like Santa Ana? What will this do to the value of our homes? What person will want to move here with a family with this reputation? Shame on the people in charge of the city allowing our Costa Mesa to go down hill like this? I don't feel safe anymore and this is a huge part of the problem and MUST not be allowed!

A very angry and upset Costa Mesa Resident.

I am diametrically opposed to another dispensary in costa mesa directly adjacent to family oriented business geared mostly to young children. Not to menƟon the three other shops that are within a few hundred yards of the proposed site. How many is enough???Our complex is a sleepy liƩle place that houses places for young children to take music lessons, dance lessons, home schooling, and for neighborhood adults to visit their denƟsts, ﬁnancial advisors, and take their pets.

We have several family restaurants patronized by mostly locals. It seems as many industrial areas as there are in costa mesa, those would be the beƩer ﬁt for these types of businesses. The security aspect these businesses oﬀer cover only their property. What about those who step over the property line to lounge around and use the products purchased from these places. I am ﬁrmly opposed to another POT shop near the other 3 that are already in business near Harbor and Adams.

Please put yourself in our place as neighbors to these businesses. Please re consider the decision to allow and oﬀer an industrial site soluƟon oﬀ of PlacenƟa or Randolf where body shops and car repair shops may be far less impacted.

Sincerely,

Thomas M. Burns
Interfinish Corporation
1525 Mesa Verde Drive East
Suite 201
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714.235.3333
[email protected]

I am the owner or Art Steps, children's after‐school fine art drawing and painting studio for children ages 4 through 17, located in the Mesa Verde plaza. We have about 200 families a week visiting us, and growing. I understand there is proposed cannabis business
that is trying to open directly next to us, and I encourage you to decline its application.

The perception of safety is essential for us to run our business teaching after school art lessons for kids.

The trust of parents is essential in them dropping their children off with us.

Of course, safety itself is critically important. Even if this cannabis business claims that it will bring safe clientele and even if that were to be true, the perception of safety and a great family neighborhood is vital to our being able to keep our doors open.

Our teachers are
fine artists with degrees, so it is somewhat challenging to hire in the first place, and they must feel safe as well when entrusted with the safety of dozens of children in a storefront business, or we will lose them as employees.

We are a responsible business and positive part of
the local culture. Businesses like ours help drive up housing values by attracting families to the area. We bring the arts to Costa Mesa in a positive way.

When we moved in, it felt to us that this neighborhood in Costa Mesa was up and coming. In fact, we have found that the area is safer than it used to be. I'll mention that our Laguna Hills location is near a vape shop, and though the general neighborhood is safe, we've had multiple incidents with several questionable people who frequent that shop, including one man lunging toward a child, and a full‐blown break‐in and one man waving a gun around in front of our studio, so we're looking to move that location.

If this business opens directly next door to us, we plan to Huntington Beach or Newport Beach. I hope you value the integrity of the neighborhood and all the families who are looking to thrive here, enough to be discerning about businesses allowed into the area.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 714‐883‐1954 or at the info below.

Best,
Hilary Key
Director, CEO
Art Steps, Inc.

(714) 524-2248 ext 700
[email protected]
www.ArtStepsClasses.com
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Performance Place - Sebastian Gonzales <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 12:06 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Opposition to Cannabis store - Mesa Verde
Hello. I am not able to attend the meeting due to schedule but I am strongly opposed to the new store. There are 2 stores in the immediate area. We have many children and kids in our complex.

I lease in the mesa verde complex. We serve student athletes from all sports (ballet to football)

We already have a vagrant problem in our area. Let’s not invite more drug use into our complex. Perhaps they can lease in a place with let’s kids like around the airport.

Thanks for the concern

Sebastian Gonzales
1525 mesa verde dr #108
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Allie Christensen <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 12:36 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Oppose Proposed Cannabis Store- Mesa Verde
To whom it may concern:

I am not able to attend the meeting due to schedule but I am strongly opposed to the proposed Cannabis store next door. There are 2 stores in the immediate area.

I lease at the Mesa Verde Center (1525 Mesa Verde Drive) My business is 100% with children ages 8‐18 and I do not
want to see more drugs brought on to our block.

We already have a very high number of vagrants, homeless, + people standing, drinking, and doing drugs RIGHT outside my door on the stairs.

We also have school right above
my office where I see children every day walking down the stairs past people doing drugs.

Please vote to move drugs, (legal or not) out of this family complex and block. There are so many locations available that do not have multiple businesses that only serve minors.

Thanks for your
consideration

Allie Christensen
Align Fitness Owner
1525 mesa verde dr #108

‐‐
Allie Christensen
Owner, Align Fitness
[email protected]

More information at
www.alignfitnessbyallie.com
On Instagram
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Lisa Proctor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:29 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Concern regarding PA 22-05
Hello….just wanted to voice my concern about bringing a marijuana store into the quiet Mesa Verde area. The proposed location seems unfortunate, as this particular shopping center is frequented by families and children (dentist/taco nights/karate classes….). There are many options to purchase these same pot products within close proximity—is this the best in terms of planning and oversight for the residents of Mesa Verde that Costa Mesa leadership can provide? Why is this location considered optimal?

Thank you,

Lisa Proctor
2001 Baltra Pl
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you

recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
1 TERAN, STACY
From: Lynda A <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 6:34 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Cannabis shop
We already have 2 within walking distance to the proposed 3rd shop in Mesa Verde plaza. We are a good clean neighborhood and 2 is enough in our area. If you need the tax revenue place it somewhere else. Maybe somewhere by Bay and Newport Blvd.

Costa Mesa resident since 2002
Lynda Andrian

Get Outlook for Android
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Larry Weichman
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Please forward to council regarding File #: 23-1412 (JUST CAUSE RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTIONS) Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 9:58:31 AM
Attachments: City Council AB 1402 & SB567.pdf
Please see the attached letter, I would appreciate a no vote for this new proposed ordinance.

We do not need more government regulations and costs to the taxpayers.

Thank you,
Larry Weichman
Broker
714.241.4532
Dre#00573423
WeichmanRealEstate.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

LarryWeichman1819SamarDriveCostaMesa,CA [email protected] File#:23-1412
DearCouncilmembersandMayorStephens,
Beforeyoutonightyouhaveaproposedordinancetoonceagainexertmoregovernmentcontroloverlandowners/propertyowners.ThenewbillssignedAB1482andSB567recentlysignedbyourGovernorprovideimprovedcoverageandhelptothetenantsofthestate.

Theplannedactionbythecitycouncilwillhaveanegativeeffect.WhywouldanypersonorcompanywanttocomeandinvestinCostaMesawithitsoverthetoplawsonpropertyowner’s? Theproposedordinancelookslikeitwillcostpropertyownersanadditionalcostof$5,940toassistinmoveoutcosts.Theproposedordinancehasnotevenaddressedwhatthetruecostofadditionalemploymenttothecitywillbejusttoenforcethiscode..

Thisisabadplanwhichwilltipoff landlordstowrite11monthlease’stocircumventthelawandwhoknowswhatelsewillhappenwithmoregovernmentintervention.

CostaMesaisgoinginthewrongdirectionlikethestateofCalifornia!Let’skeepCostaMesafriendlytowardslandlordsandbusinessesthatinvestinourcommunityandnotencouragethemtorunfromthecity.

Thankyou,
LarryWeichmanCostaMesaResidentsince1976BusinessOwnerPropertyOwner

From: GREEN, BRENDA
To: TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: October 17th Agenda - New Business Item Number 2 - Costa Mesa Just Cause Residential Tenant Protections Ordinance
Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 10:53:50 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Ltr to Costa Mesa City Council re Just Cause Tenant Protections Ordinance(19810337.2).pdf

From: Slobodien, Mia R. <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 10:49 AM
To: STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>; HARLAN, JEFFREY <[email protected]>; MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>; GAMEROS, LOREN <[email protected]>; GAMEROS, LOREN <[email protected]>; HARPER, DON <[email protected]>; REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]> Cc: GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>; Farrell, Jennifer J. <[email protected]>; Munoz, Patrick <[email protected]>; Dennington, Doug <[email protected]> Subject: October 17th Agenda - New Business Item Number 2 - Costa Mesa Just Cause Residential Tenant Protections Ordinance

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:

Attorney Jennifer J. Farrell requested that I forward to your attention our attached letter dated 10/17/2023 for youre review and consideration.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Farrell directly at (714) 338-1884 or [email protected] .

Thank you.

Mia R. Slobodien
Legal Secretary
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 641-5100 x1341
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

Jennifer J. Farrell
Direct Dial: (714) 338-1884
E-mail: [email protected]

October 17, 2023

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Re: Costa Mesa Just Cause Residential Tenant Protections Ordinance Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:

This office represents a significant number of property owners and landlords throughout the City of Costa Mesa ( “City”). This letter concerns New Business Item Number 2 on your October 17 th Agenda: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California Amending Title 9 ( Licenses and Business re gulations) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code by Adding Chapter II (Regulation of Certain Businesses, Article 24 (Just Cause Residential Tenant Protections) (“Proposed Ordinance”). On behalf of our various clients , we are writing to voice their opposition to the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance.

As set forth below, the Proposed Ordinance is problematic on many legal fronts. It singles out landlords and property owners throughout the City causing them to incur additional costs, expenses, and obligations beyond those imposed by both existing State Law requirements and their existing leases. Many of our clients own properties in the City that are co -owned, or funded by investors and partnerships which include State and union pension funds, endowments, and other fixed income investors whose investment in real estate is predicated on the rule of law and the privity (and security) of contracts in which they invest. Other of our clients include small to medium sized property owners and real estate management companies that have invested in the City with the similar expectation that they could rely upon the contracts they entered. Whether large investors, or small, the Proposed Ordinance provides no relief or compensation to landlords or property owners for the additional costs, expenses, and obligations it imposes.

Our office urges the City Council not to adopt the Proposed Ordinance, and to refrain from impairing contractual relationships which are already controlled by Sta te Law. Indeed, we urge you to resist the political pressure to take action that is duplicative of State Law, and that will unnecessarily expose the City to hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential liability in order compensate land owners for the unconstitutional taking of private property (liability that, absent the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance, would fall on the State). Significantly, to the extent there are concerns related to problematic landlords in the City, even without the adoption of the Proposed

City Council
City of Costa Mesa
October 17, 2023

Page 2 ends

2671/030137-0003
19810337.2 a10/17/23

Ordinance, the City Attorney already has the ability to enforce the provisions of the Tenant Protection Act. (Civ. Code § 1946.2(h)(2), effective April 1, 2024.) Stated otherwise, the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance provides no new remedies to the City; and rather, would only expose the City to liability for inverse condemnation, substantive due process violations, equal protection violations, liability for interference with contract, and a host of other legal theories . It will a lso burden the City with additional administrative and staffing obligations – in a City Hall that is already stretched too thin. Our office urges the City Council to vote “no” on the Proposed Ordinance, and invest the funds that would otherwise be used to defend itself from unnecessary litigation on education and outreach related to State Law obligations, and appropriate landlord-tenant relationships.

In the event the City Council desires to move forward with adopting the Proposed Ordinance, below is a summary of the potential legal challenges that it might face.

PREEMPTION – UNLAWFUL DETAINER LAWS
The Proposed Ordinance requires that a property owner give notice to City of the issuance of a written notice to terminate tenancy for any no-fault cause; if no notice is provided, the eviction notice is void. (Proposed Ordinance, § 9-402.D) The Proposed Ordinance also requires notice to the tenant of relocation assistance rights and imposes on the landlord a relocation assistance payment or rent waiver of “two times the Fair Market Rental rate for a unit of similar size, or two months of the tenant ’s rent that was in effect when the owner issued the notice to terminate the tenancy, whichever is greater.” (Ibid., § 9-403.B.) These requirements are improper limitations on the state-mandated process related to unlawful detainer actions. “Unlawful detainer actions are authorized and governed by state statute.” (Larson v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1297.) “The statutory scheme is intended and designed to provide an expeditious remedy for the recovery of possession of real property. ” (Id., citing Birkenfeld v City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, at151.) As relevant here, Code of Civil Procedure section 1161 provides that a residenti al tenant is “guilty of unlawful detainer ” where the tenant “continues in possession ” of the leased property without permission of the landlord “after default in the payment of rent, pursuan t to the lease agreement under which the property is held, and three days’ notice, . . . in writing, requiring its payment . . . . The notice may be served at any time within one year after the rent becomes due.” (Civ. Proc. Code § 1161(2), emphasis added; Haydell v. Silva (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 20, 23 [“One of the evident purposes of this section of the law is to point out specifically to the tenant the amount of rent due, and to give the tenant the opportunity to pay the rent within the time allowed by the statute.”]; Levitz Furniture Co. v. Wingtip Comm., Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1037, n.3 [noting the provision providing for three days’ notice “has remained unchanged since 1905”].)

City Council
City of Costa Mesa
October 17, 2023

Page 3 ends

2671/030137-0003
19810337.2 a10/17/23

It is well-established that a city may not modify the procedure established by the unlawful detainer statutes, and in particular, may not alter the comprehensive timeline set forth in the law. (Birkenfeld, 17 Cal.3d at 141; Tri County Apartment Assn. v. City of Mountain View (“Tri County”) (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1283, 1297 –98 [“Landlord-tenant relationships are so much affecte d by statutory timetables governing the parties ’ respective rights and obligations that a ‘patterned approach’ by the Legislature appears clear”].)
Further, the structure of the Proposed Ordinance makes clear that the financial relocation assistance or rent waiver amount is a proxy for an extension of the time provided by the unlawful detainer statute. Because the City cannot require a landlord delay one month before commencing an eviction based on nonpayment, it instead attempts to require payment of two month’s fair- market rent as relocation assistance or as a rent waiver. The effect is virtually the same. Except for units that are above the fair -market rent, the eviction process is effectively delayed at least a month, preventing property owners of availing themselves of the expeditious process established by the Legislature.

Despite the clear caselaw related to the procedural supremacy of the unl awful detainer statutes, t he Proposed Ordinance requires additional procedural hurdles (i.e., “more steps”) to consummate an eviction than the procedure established by State Law by requiring inter alia: (a) notice of the tenant of the right to relocation assistance or rent waiver ; and (b) notice to the City of a potential eviction. The Proposed Ordinance thus places additional burdens on landlords despite the clear and unambiguous procedures laid out by State Law, and hence is preempted by the State which has fully occupied the field of law in this area.

IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT
The Proposed Ordinance requires that a property owner give notice to City of the issuance of a written notice to terminate tenancy for any no -fault cause; if no notice provided, eviction notice is void. The Proposed Ordinance also requires payment to the tenant of relocation assistance or rent waiver of “two times the Fair Market Rental rate for a unit of similar size, or two months of the tenant’s rent that was in effect when the owner issued the notice to terminate the tenancy, whichever is greater. ” The Proposed Ordinance also requires certain language be included in leases and without such language, renders void any notice of termination of the lease. (Proposed Ordinance, §§ 9-402.D, 9-403.B, 9-405.D).

The Contracts Clause, Art. 1, § 10, of the United States Constitution, provides: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” In general, the Contracts Clause prohibits the enactment of laws that “substantially impair” the rights and remedies of parties in existing contracts. In determining whether a particular law violates the Contracts Clause, Federal Courts employ a two-part test. (Sveen v. Melin (2018) 138 S.Ct. 1815, 1822.) First, courts look to see whether the law ’s impairment of an existing contract is “substantial.” (Id.) Only after it

City Council
City of Costa Mesa
October 17, 2023

Page 4 ends

2671/030137-0003
19810337.2 a10/17/23

determines the impairment to be substantial will the court apply the second prong of the test, which inquires “whether the state law is drawn in an ‘appropriate’ and ‘reasonable’ way to advance ‘a significant and legitimate public purpose’.” (Id., quoting Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co. (1983) 459 U.S. 400, 411-412.)
As set forth above, in viola tion of the Contracts Clause, t he Proposed Ordinance imposes notice and “relocation assistance” obligations upon on of the parties to a contract ( i.e., the lease) that were not part of the initial bargain – and thus, clearly impair the contractual obligati ons.

Moreover, by imposing these requirements, the City places a substantial burden – the cost of two month’s fair-market rent (or up to $9,440) – upon every landlord who evicts a tenant without just cause. The Proposed Ordinance is drafted in a manner that is neither “appropriate” nor “reasonable,” as it requires the landlord to solely carry the burden of that financial expense regardless of when the lease agreement was entered into – and it does even attempt to operate on a prospective basis in order to avoid the potential impairment of contractual relations.

Indeed, if the City Council has determined that rental relocation assistance is a significant and important issue to the City , it could provide those funds from its General Fund (or any other unrestricted City account) without impairing the contractual relationship s that have already been established citywide between landlords and tenants. However, forcing these costs to be borne by private parties whose existing contractual agreements do not contemplate them is an unconstitutional impairment of contracts.

TAKINGS
Finally, t he Proposed Ordinance implicates the Takings Clause set forth in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Takings Clause is designed to “bar [] Government from forcing some people alone to bear the public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” (Lingle v. Chevron Corp. (2005) 544 U.S. 528, 537, quoting Armstrong v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 40, 49.) The Takings Clause does not itself prevent government from taking private property for public use; rather, it provides a remedy of “just compensation” when a court finds the government action, in fact, effects a taking. (Knick v. Township of Scott (2019) 139 S.Ct. 2162, 2177.)
The Supreme Court has purposely avoided setting forth any “one size fits all ” test to analyze whether any given government measure effects a taking. Rather, the Court has established two “categories” of government action that constitute a per se taking. First, when the government requires a physical occupation of private property, the government action effects a taking, regardless of the extent of the physical occupation. (Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021) ___U.S.___ [141 S.Ct. 2063] [holding that a California access regulation for labor organizations constitutes a per se physical taking]; Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) 458 U.S. 419, 436 [holding that New York C ity law requiring landlords to allow cable installations

City Council
City of Costa Mesa
October 17, 2023

Page 5 ends

2671/030137-0003
19810337.2 a10/17/23

(occupying less than 1 ½ cubic feet) for tenants constituted a per se taking of private property mandating the payment of “just compensation”].) Second, when the government measure deprives the owner of all economically beneficial use of private property, the measure effects a categorical taking. (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) 505 U.S. 1003, 1019 [holding that a South Carolina law precluding developer from building on two coastal-front lots to address erosion of beaches on Palm Island deprived developer of all economically viable use of the lots and, thus, constituted a categorical per se taking].)
Outside of these two categorical takings, the courts are required to balance various factors when determining whether a particular government action has “taken” particular property. (See, Lingle, supra, 544 U.S. at 529 [describing “ad hoc” Penn Central test named after Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104].) Chief among the factors to consider are (a) the economic impact on the claimant; (b) the extent to which the government action interferes with distinct, investment -backed expectations; and (3) the character o f the government action. (Lingle, supra, 544 U.S. at 529.)
While at one time the public interest served by a local regulation tended to lessen the risk of liability for a regulatory taking, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that the “public interest” advanced by government regulation has no relevance to takings liability. (Chevron v.

Lingle (2005) 544 U.S. 528, 542-543 [holding that the “public interest” or “government objective” is irrelevant to whether the government action effected a takin g].) Indeed, Justice O ’Connor, writing for the majority, made clear that the language in prior takings cases relating to whether the government regulation “substantially advances a legitimate government interest ” has no place in takings law: “A test that tells us nothing about the actual burden imposed on property rights, or how that burden is allocated, cannot tell us when justice might require that burden be spread among taxpayers through the payment of compensation.” (Id. at 543.) The Proposed Ordinance falls squarely within the “physical occupation” line of cases that the United States Supreme Court (and California courts) have held constitute per se categorical takings. (See, e.g., Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp . (1982) 458 U.S. 419, 435 [holding that any physical occupation of private property, no matter how small or trivial, constitutes a taking of private property for which the owner is entitled to just compensation and reasoning that “the power to exclude has traditionally been considered one of the most treasured strands in an owner’s bundle of property rights.” [emphasis added].) If adopted, the Proposed Ordinance will compel property owners to a llow occupants to remain on their property who are in default, and whose contractual rights have expired under State Law (e.g., holdover tenants or tenants at sufferance ) without an enforceable agreement in place between the two private parties . This is a classic per se physical taking because the City is mandating the landlord allow physical occupation of the landlord’s property, against the landlord’s will. Not only will the landlord be forced to permit the continued occupation of his or her property,

City Council
City of Costa Mesa
October 17, 2023

Page 6 ends

2671/030137-0003
19810337.2 a10/17/23

but he or she will also be required to continue incurring the expenses associated with the unlawful occupation of the property , based on California landlord tenant law that imposes mandatory obligations on the part of lessors and property owners . These two facts lead to one conclusion:
substantial damages, for which the City will bear the responsibility if it goes forward with adopting the Proposed Ordinance.

As you may know, a property owner is no longer required to attempt to invalidate an offending regulation in State Court as a precondition to filing a regulatory takings claim in Federal Court. In Knick v. Township of Scott (2019) 139 S.Ct. 2162, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Williamson County Regional Planning Com. v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985) 473 U.S. 172, holding that property owners need not exhaust state judicial remedies as a prerequisite to filing a regulatory takings claim in Federal Court. Knick made abundantly clear that an aggrieved property owner may pursue its takings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 directly in Federal Court.1 The Supreme Court reasoned that a taking under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution occurs when the government makes a decision impacting private property and such a taking is not a function of judicial remedies that may or may not be available in the state judicial system.

Accordingly, impacted property owners in the City have no obligation to file a petition for writ of mandamus in California Superior Court attempting to invalidate the Proposed Ordinance (if adopted) before seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Federal Court. In such cases, the property owners would be entitled to recover litigation expenses and attorneys ’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, in addition to damages.

CONCLUSION
The legal concerns noted above aside, the Proposed Ordinance sends a clear and negative message to a development community that is already hesitant to invest in a post-Measure Y Costa Mesa. That message is that the City Council will continue to pick away at private property rights.

1 This stands in stark contrast to California’s law on regulatory takings, which generally requires a landowner to attempt to invalidate a particular law or regulation by writ of administrative mandamus before seeking monetary damages on a regulatory takings theory. (Hensler v. Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 13-16.) Because state judicial remedies are no longer a prerequisite to pursuing monetary relief directly in Federal Court, property owners need not waste time and money challenging the validity of the Pr oposed Ordinance on the grounds that it is fatally incomprehensible, denies equal protection, or is otherwise arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.

City Council
City of Costa Mesa
October 17, 2023

Page 7 ends

2671/030137-0003
19810337.2 a10/17/23
Should the Council proceed with adopting the Proposed Ordinance, its action, combined with the existing and substantial permitting delays, and whispers of future actions on inclusionary zoning and/or rent control ordin ances, will guarantee that Costa Mesa remains a “no fly zone ” for developers. In sum, all roads lead to a “no” vote on the Proposed Ordinance.

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
Jennifer J. Farrell
JJF:SM:mrs
cc: Brenda Green, City Clerk ([email protected]) From: [email protected]
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Just Cause Eviction
Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 10:33:49 AM
In order to renovate a unit, it needs to be unoccupied. Most units in Costa Mesa are 60 years old. It takes 30-45 days to complete the project.

Property owners have rights to control their businesses and provide housing. Government overreach is unconstitutional. Costa Mesa is a coastal city and is not inexpensive to reside in. It is not the burden of the landlord to make up for what renters can not afford. It is unfortunate that this country is in such a poor economic situation, but landlords did not cause it.

Property owners have the right to maintain and update their units to keep their property value current without government interfering in their businesses.

David Miller
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Jennifer Tanaka
To: CITY COUNCIL
Cc: CITY CLERK
Subject: Public Comment Re: New Business Item #2
Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 9:22:43 AM
Attachments: Letter to Council - Eviction Ordinance - October 17 2023.pdf Members of the City Council:

Please find attached a letter regarding New Business Item #2 (Proposed Ordinance re: No-Fault Just Cause Evictions). For easier access, please find below links to the documents referenced in the letter. I hope you find it helpful as you discuss this vitally important issue. https://ocindependent.com/2023/09/santa-ana-registry-roll-out-criticized-as-intrusive-and-burdensome/ https://www.newtimesslo.com/news/slo-grover-beach-pass-emergency-tenant-protections-as-evictions-spike- with-new-state-law-9056921
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/no_eviction_without_representation_research_brief_0.pdf

Best,
Jenn Tanaka
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

October 17, 2023ViaEmail
CostaMesaCityCouncil77Fair DriveCostaMesa, [email protected] Dear Membersof theCityCouncil:

Thankyoufor instructingStaff tobringforwardreformstoaddressour ongoingevictioncrisis.It’saconversationthat islongoverdueandthat I wishwehadaddressedmuchsooner, asunfortunatelymuchdamagehasalreadybeendone.

However, asyouconsider theStaff’srecommendation, I hopeyouwill keepinmindthat theonlyreasonwhywehaveanevictioncrisisisbecauseof theyawninggapbetweenwhat peoplecanaffordtopayfor housingandwhat themarket will bear. Landlordswouldnot beseekingno-faultevictionsif theywerefacingchronicvacanciesandfallingor stagnant rents. Andtenantswouldnot beseekingaidif alternativehousingoptionswereabundant, attractiveandaffordable.Ultimately, it istheremarkablemarket power advantagethat landlordshaveover rentersthat isdrivingthisproblem, andour ownmisguidedhousingpolicyhasgivenit tothem.

Withthat said, I havesomequestions/commentsregardingtheproposedordinance:

Howconfident arewethat weunderstandthewholeproblem?
Thereiszerodoubt that weareinacrisis. Wehavehadmany, manycommentersgivecompellingpersonal testimonyabout thepoor enforcement of existinglawsregardingsubstantial renovationandour buildingcodelaws. But wehavealsoheardalot of difficultstoriesabout howhardit istosimplymakerent inaninflationaryenvironment. TheAgendaReport notesthat CostaMesahadthe4thhighest evictionrateinOrangeCounty, but it shouldbeclarifiedthat thisstatisticreferstotheevictionrate*for thenonpayment of rent*. It doesnotdescribeCostaMesa’srelativeno-fault just causeevictionrate. Infact, thisstatisticfurthersupportsthat rent affordabilityisacritical, andperhapsthecritical, issue.

Requiringthedisclosureof tenant informationraisesprivacyconcerns.

Thedraft ordinanceconditionsthegrantingof permitsondisclosingtotheCitythenamesof alltenantstobeevictedbytherenovations, andrequireslandlordstonotifythecityif it intendstocarryout ano-fault just causeeviction. Giventhestatedgoalsof theAgendaReport (“cityinvolvement will increaseowner accountability, ensuretenantsarefullyawareof their rights, andallowtheCitytoprovideadditional support toimproveoutcomesfor all”), what informationaboutthetenantswill becollected, giventhat it will becollectedwithout their consent?Will it includeatenant’sspecificaddress(includingapartment number), effectivecurrent rent, lengthof tenancy, contact information(potentiallybothphoneandemail), andother membersof thehousehold?What about forwardingaddressesandcontact info? If extensivecontact andrental informationwill becollected, arethereanyconcernsabout eithertenant privacyor thepotential disclosure/misuseof suchinformationinthefuture?Will suchinformationbesubject toFOIA?What will prevent futureofficeholdersfromusingthisinformationfor lawenforcement or immigrationenforcement?I wouldnotethat otherjurisdictions, notablySantaAna, havetriedtocreatecomprehensiverental databasesandsimilar concernsarebeingraisedbyabroadrangeof activists 1 .

Tyingrelocationassistancetofair market rent rather thaneffectiverent leavessuchassistanceuncapped. Howwill that affect therental ecosystem? Relocationpaymentsbasedoneffectiverent allowlandlordstoplanfor thiscontingency, whilerequiringtheamount of suchpaymentsto“float” withthemarket makessuchplanningmoredifficult. Doweknow(or haveweasked) howlandlordsmight addressthisrisk? Isthereanyconcernthat puttingmoreriskandliabilityonlandlordsmaytrigger further rentalmarket consolidation?If it might, arelargecorporatelandlordsbetter housingprovidersformarginal renters?I wouldguessnot: largecorporatelandlordsmayfeel morecomfortablemitigatingriskbymakingtheapplicationrequirementsmorestrict or byhiringevictionattorneys.It wouldbeacoldcomfort tohavetwomonths’ fair market rent inhandtorelocateonlytofindthat I can’t qualifyfor anylocal apartment becauseof mycredit rating, criminal historyor otherscreeningfactor.

Areweonthevergeof another waveof evictionsfollowingthepassageof SB567? Thepassageof AB1482backin2019triggeredasignificant waveof evictions, aslandlordsscrambledtooffloaddifficult or lower rent tenantsinadvanceof thenewrulesgoingintoeffect.It standstoreasonthat, withtheCOVIDevictionmoratoriumsendingandtheso-called“substantial renovationloophole” closing, theApril effectivedatemaytouchoff another wave.

Aretherebetter waysforwardthantheStaff proposal?
Personally, I thinkso.

First, Council coulddirect asimple“bringforward” of theeffectivedateof SB567vialocalordinance, set toexpireasof April 2024, whichwouldimmediatelyclosethe“substantialrenovation” loophole. Doingsowouldhelpblunt landlords’ incentivestoavail themselvesof theoldrulesbeforetheApril 2024effectivedate, andthiswastheapproachof other jurisdictionswithasimilar effect wasseenbeforetheeffectivenessof AB1482 2 . Yes, thiswouldplacesome
2 https://www.newtimesslo.com/news/slo-grover-beach-pass-emergency-tenant-protections-as-evictions-spike-with-new-state-law-9056921 1 https://ocindependent.com/2023/09/santa-ana-registry-roll-out-criticized-as-intrusive-and-burdensome/ burdenonlandlordswhowouldneedtoacceleratetheir SB567timelines. But theCouncil iswell positionedtofact-findandweighthat tradeoff.

Second, insteadof creatingadditional rulesontopof SB567, theCitycouldchoosetospendsomeof itsexpectedbudget surplusonconnectingtenantstolegal aid 3 . TheACLUhasstudiedtheeffectivenessof thiskindof interventioninother jurisdictionsandfoundthat havingrepresentationsignificantlyimprovedtenant outcomes 4 . Thisislargelybecause, inmostlandlord-tenant cases, thelandlordsarewell representedbyskilled, experiencedattorneyswhereastenantsareoftenleft tryingtorepresent themselves. Asalawyer I cannotoveremphasizewhat aradical disadvantagethisistothetenant. Thisapproachwouldalsoallowtenantstoconnect withathirdpartythat is*not* affiliatedwiththegovernment, whichwouldhelptomaintaintheir privacywhilestill achievingthegoal of gettingthemconnectedtorental assistanceandother resources.

Well-fundinglegal aidwouldhavetheadditional benefit of addressingtheneedsof residentscurrentlyfacingevictiontoday, rather thanonlyhelpingthosefacingevictioninthefuture. It alsodirectlyaddressesaparticularlydifficult moment for our renter population–thesunsettingofCOVIDmoratoriaandrental assistancecoupledwiththeimpendingeffectivedateof SB567–without makingpermanent changesviaordinancethat might or might not addressissuesthatwill comeupinthefuture.

OnceagainI’mgladwearebelatedlyhavingthisconversation. I hopethesecommentsarehelpful.

Best,JennTanaka321BroadwayCostaMesa, CA92627
4 https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/no_eviction_without_representation_research_brief_0.pdf 3 Pleasenotethat I makethissuggestionpersonally, rather thanasamember of theFinanceandPensionAdvisoryCommittee. Asacommitteemember, I wholeheartedlysupport theseparateFIPACrecommendationsregardingthebudget surplusasthat committeehasaspecificmandate.

From: JEFF BUTCHER
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: HARLAN, JEFFREY; STEPHENS, JOHN
Subject: Response to 10-17-23 CC meeting New Business Item2 "Proposed Ordinance" 23-1412 Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 8:58:52 PM
Attachments: Response to 23-1412.pdf
Dear City Clerk & City Council members. Please find the attached PDF with my response to the Proposed Ordinance 23-1412 which will be heard as new business item 2 on 10-17-23 City Council Meeting. Thank you for your consideration.

Jeff Butcher
(949)422-1108 mobile
[email protected]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: HAUSER, JANET
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Ca. Emergency Center
Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 9:03:56 AM
Please see email below.

Janet Hauser
Executive Assistant to Costa Mesa City Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Desk: 714-754-5107
Cell: 714-949-3693
[email protected]
Note: Using the “Reply All” option may inadvertently result in a Brown Act violation.

Costa Mesa is launching a new permit and license processing system called TESSA in August. TESSA will replace our existing system and all land use, building and business license applications currently in process will be transferred to the new system. To learn more about TESSA, visit our FAQ page at https://www.costamesaca.gov/tessa .
-----Original Message-----
From: Martha Omeara <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 8:55 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Ca. Emergency Center
California Emergency Center should not be at the Costa Mesa site. We have almost no land available for low incoming hosing that is being required by the state and this land area is perfect for that use. In addition you will impact the quality of life for the neighbors near the area. I know it is free to the state but a much more appropriate place would be the large hanger area in Irvine area with commercial area around it. Don’t push this on us! Martha OMeara
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: HAUSER, JANET
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Southern Region Emergency Operations Center Project EIR Public Comment Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 8:41:59 AM
Attachments: CMABS - FDC Draft EIR Comment_Letter (Executed).pdf image003.jpg
Please see email below

From: Jenn Tanaka <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 10:13 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Russell Toler <[email protected]>; Ralph Taboada <[email protected]>; Marc Vukcevich <[email protected]>; David Martinez <[email protected]>; Flo Martin <[email protected]>; Mike Lingle <[email protected]>; CityManager <[email protected]>; CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>; [email protected]; assemblymember.petrie- [email protected]; [email protected]; LE, JENNIFER <[email protected]>; DRAPKIN, SCOTT <[email protected]>
Subject: Southern Region Emergency Operations Center Project EIR Public Comment

Dear Ms. Ash:

By way of introduction, my name is Jenn Tanaka and I am a board member of the Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets (CMABS). CMABS is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to improving street infrastructure and policy in Costa Mesa.

On behalf of myself and my fellow board members of CMABS, all copied here, please find enclosed an electronic copy of our comment letter regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed Southern Region Emergency Operations Center Project. As detailed in our comment letter, we have concerns regarding the completeness and analysis set forth in the section detailing potential transportation impacts. If you have any questions regarding our comment letter, please feel free to reach out to me or the other CMABS board members copied on this email.

We have taken the liberty of also copying our elected officials and relevant members of the Costa Mesa City Staff for visibility of our comments.

For your convenience a hard copy of this letter will be sent to the address set forth in the Draft EIR.

Best,
Jenn Tanaka
Board Member, Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets

October 13, 2023
TerryAsh, Senior Environmental PlannerCaliforniaDepartment of General Services, Real EstateDivisionc/oDudek2635NorthFirst Street, Ste. 149SanJose, California95134 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report, SouthernRegionEmergencyOperationsCenterProject, SCHNo. 2023030046 Dear Ms. Ash:

Wearewritingonbehalf of theCostaMesaAlliancefor Better Streets(“CMABS”), a501(c)(3)nonprofit organizationdedicatedtoimprovingstreet infrastructureandpolicytopromoteactivetransportation, transit useandpeople-centeredurbandesign. WeappreciatetheopportunitytoreviewandprovidecommentsontheDraft Environmental Impact Report for theproposedSouthernRegionEmergencyOperationsCenter Project, SCHNo. 2023030046(the“DraftEIR”).

Webelievethat theDraft EIRprovidesinsufficient evidencethat theproject maybedeemedtohave“lessthansignificant impact” withrespect totransportation. AppendixGof theCEQAGuidelinesstatesthat a“significant impact” relatedtotransportationwouldoccur if aproposedproject would:1) Conflict withaprogram, plan, ordinance, or policyaddressingthecirculationsystem,includingtransit, roadway, bicycle, andpedestrianfacilities;2) Conflict or beinconsistent withCEQAGuidelinessection15064.3, subdivision(b);3) Substantiallyincreasehazardsduetoageometricdesignfeature(e.g., sharpcurvesordangerousintersections) or incompatibleuses(e.g., farmequipment); or4) Result ininadequateemergencyaccess.

WerespectfullydisagreewiththeDraft EIR’srejectionof potential conflicts(2) and(3) listedabove. Wealsobelievethat theproject mayconflict withtheobjectivesoutlinedinSenateBill188, whichhasearmarkedtheFairviewDevelopment Center (“FDC”) sitefor affordablehousing,andthat theDraft EIRhasnot sufficientlyanalyzedthesepotential conflicts.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E8B80355-1F13-4B9C-B683-1D1A91D643E6 Theproject maybeinconsistent withCEQAGuidelinesSection15064.3, subdivision(b) TheDraft EIRclaimsthat theproject meetsthescreeningcriteriafor a“local government”project becausetheproject “isnot consideredtobeaproject of regionwidesignificance”.However, throughout thedocument theDraft EIRemphasizesthecritical roletheproposedproject wouldplayinsupportingemergencymanagement servicesthroughout theSouthernCaliforniaregion, evenwhentheMather facilityisfullyoperational:
“Theproject woulddevelopanother EmergencyOperationsCenter (EOC) inSouthernCaliforniathat wouldmirror theoperationsof theMather facilityat asmaller scaleandact asabackupEOCintheevent that operationsat Mather areinterrupted. It wouldalsoprovidemoreeffectivestateemergencysupport tolocal governmentswithintheSouthernRegion. TheSouthernRegioncovers11countieswithintwomutual aidregions(Mutual AidRegion1: LosAngeles, Orange, SanLuisObispo, SantaAna, andVenturaCounties; Mutual AidRegion2: Imperial, Inyo, MonoRiverside, SanBernardino,andSanDiegoCounties) andincludes226incorporatedcitieswithatotalpopulationof 22.9millionpeople(Cal OES2022b).” (Draft EIR, Section3.1) “TheproposedSREOCwouldsupport full-timestaff andestablisharegional centertoserveasahubfor critical emergencymanagement planningandemergencypreparednessservicesinsupport of local agencies. TheSouthernRegionischargedwithsupportingalargeareathat isamajor contributor tothenation’sgrossdomesticproduct, withapopulationdensitycenteredonsomeof thestate’shighest riskearthquakefaults.” (Draft EIR, Section3.1) “AlthoughtheproposedEOCwouldbeapublicbenefit, theproject wouldnot servethelocal communityor plannedusesat therest of theFDCpropertyspecificallyandwouldnot reduceexistingor futurevehicleuse.” (Draft EIR,Table4.9-1) TheDraft EIRalsostatesthat, duetoitsroleasanemergencymanagement center, theproposedEOCwouldbecompletelycar-dependent for itsmobilityandaccess( emphasisbelowours):
“However, theproject wouldbereliant onautomobiletravel duetothenatureof theproject asanemergencyfacility.” (Draft EIR, Table4.9-1) Giventheveryhighcost of livinginCostaMesa, it islikelythat manyof theseemployeeswillcommutefromoutsideof thelocal area. Therefore, determiningthat thisproject is“local” isgrosslyinconsistent withtheplainreadingof thescreeningcriteriacategories. Theotherscreeningcriteriacategories–schools, local-servingretail, communityinstitutions, seniorhousing, student housing, etc. –areincludedbecausethevehiclemilestraveled(“VMT”)generatedbythesetypesof projectsaretypicallylower thanthosegeneratedbyregular office,retail, residential or other landusetypes, either becausecustomerscanaccessthoseinstitutionsviaalternativemeans(walking, bicycling, transit) ORbecausetheusersor 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: E8B80355-1F13-4B9C-B683-1D1A91D643E6 employeesof suchinstitutionsaremorelikelytobelivingwithout acar. Inthecaseof anemergencyoperationscenter servingthelarger SouthernCaliforniaregion, whereall full-timeemployeesareexpectedtobecommutingbycar, it ispossiblethat theVMTgeneratedbytheproposedEOCwill begreater thanthat of amoretypical officeof similar size.

CMABSComment #1
CEQAGuidelinesSection15064.3, subsection(b) statesthat landuseprojects“that decreasevehiclemilestraveledintheproject areacomparedtoexistingconditionsshouldbepresumedtohavealessthansignificant transportationimpact” (emphasisours). TheDraft EIRprovidesnoevidencethat theVMTintheproject areawouldbelower thantheexistingconditions, oreventhat it wouldbelower thantheVMTthat wouldbegeneratedbyretail, officeor otheradministrativeusesof asimilar size. Assuch, theDraft EIRdoesnot sufficientlysupport itsclaimthat it qualifiesfor the“local government” screeningcriteriaandit isthereforepotentiallyinconsistent withCEQAGuidelinessection15064.3, subdivision(b).

CMABSComment #2
Wedonot believethat theleadagencymayrelyonCEQAGuidelinesSection15206tosupportitsconclusionthat the“local government” screeningcriteriaappliestotheproposedproject. Justbecausetheproject cannot bedeemedtobeof “regional, statewideor areawidesignificance”under Section15206, it doesnot followthat suchproject isthereforesufficiently“local” toreasonablypresumethat VMTwouldbereducedcomparedtotheexistingconditionsunderCEQAGuidelinesSection15064.3, subdivision(b).

Astheleadagencyadmitsthat theproject doesnot qualifyfor anyalternatescreeningcriteria,theDraft EIRprovidesinsufficient support overall for thepresumptionthat it will havea“less-than-significant” transportationimpact. TheDraft EIRshouldberevisedeither toprovideadditional support for itsclaimthat theproject qualifiesfor theproject typescreeningcriteriaortoanalyzewhether thetransportationimpact issufficientlysubstantial towarrant mitigationmeasures.

Theproject maysubstantiallyincreasehazardsduetoageometricdesignfeature Theproject includesthecreationof anewstreet throughtheSoutheast corner of theFairviewDevelopment Center siteandcertain“improvements” totheintersectionsof ShelleyCircleandFair Drive, Fair DriveandHarbor Boulevard, ShelleyCircleandMerrimacWay, andHarborBoulevardandMerrimacWay. WhiletheDraft EIRdescribesthesechangesas“minorimprovements” (Draft EIR, Section3.5.2), theyarenot minor. Infact, eachintroducesadesignfeaturethat underminestheleadagency’sassertionthat suchchangeswill causea“lessthansignificant” impact under CEQA. 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: E8B80355-1F13-4B9C-B683-1D1A91D643E6 Relocationof ShelleyCircle
First, whileit isaccuratetosaythat therelocationof ShelleyCircletotheSoutheast corner ofthepropertywouldnot presentlyrequirechangestotheoff-sitecirculationoncityroadsoutsideof theFDCcampus, thisconclusionrequireswillful blindnesswithrespect totheFDCsite’spresent Stateownership, thebuilt environment of theFDCsite, andtheState’sandCity’sintentionthat it primarilybeusedfor denseinfill affordablehousing.

TheCity’scirculationelement doesnot addressdevelopment at theFDCsitepreciselybecausethereisnopresent development at theFDCsite, andtheFDCsitehashistoricallylayoutsidetheCity’sjurisdiction. Thereforeit isspeculativetosaythat theproposedproject “wouldnotcontributetocumulativeimpactswithrespect tohazardousdesignfeatures” (Draft EIR, Section14.13.8), astheCity’splansfor circulationoff-sitecirculationdonot, andcouldnot, takeintoaccount thefull development planof theFDCsite.

Furthermore, theSouthwest corner of theFDCsiteiscurrentlyonlyoneof twolargeexpansesof openspacethat isnot presentlyoccupiedbybuildingsor other improvements. Assuch, itwouldbeaprimecandidatefor open-spacelandusesthat arenecessarytosupport over 2,000additional unitsof housing, suchasparksor schools.

ThedecisiontorelocateShelleyCircletobisect thisopenspacewill raisesubstantial landusechallengesastheCity’saffordablehousingplanmovesforward. Theproposedroadwill havenosidewalks, nocontrolledor uncontrolledcrossingpoints, andit will prioritizetruckandheavymachinerytraffic. Thusasdesigned, theproposedroadwill bedangerousor impossibletocrossonfoot or onbicycle, andtheopenspaceintheSoutheast corner of theFDCpropertywilleffectivelybecut off fromtherest of thesite. Soeither theCitymust either forfeit valuablepublicusesof thelandintheSoutheast corner of theFDCsiteor accept that theroadproposedbythisproject will createadailysourceof danger anddiscomfort for residents.

CMABSComment #3
Therecanbenoconflict withoff-sitecirculationonlybecausethereisnooff-sitecirculationofanykindwithintheFDC, astheFDCiscurrentlyinoperableandlocatedonstate-ownedland.However, issuesliketheoneraisedaboveclearlywill conflict withtheplannedoff-sitecirculationof theFDCsiteoncetheCityof CostaMesaobtainsjurisdictionover it, boththeCityandtheStateof California(viaSenateBill 188) hasdeclaredFDC’shighest prioritytobethedevelopment of denseaffordablehousing. ThiswaspreviewedbytheCityof CostaMesa’scomment letter, datedApril 17, 2023, totheNoticeof Preparationfor theDraft EIR, whichrequestedthat theDraft EIRincorporateanextensivediscussionof activetransportationfacilitiestobeprovidedwithintheFDCsite. Giventhat housingwill bebuilt bylaw, it iswillfullyignorant toanalyzeonlythetransportationimpactsonthepresent built environment. TheDraftEIRshouldberevisedtoincludeadiscussionof theCity’splans, asenvisionedandfundedbySenateBill 188, for theSoutheast corner of FDC, aswell asitsrelatedinterestsinpromotingactivetransportationandtransit throughout theFDCsite. 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: E8B80355-1F13-4B9C-B683-1D1A91D643E6 Increasedturnradii at Harbor BlvdandMerrimacWayandHarbor BlvdandFair Drive Historically, theFDCwasconstructedtoshielditsprior residents–individualswithmental anddevelopmental disabilities–fromthepublicright-of-way, andthereforeonlyprovidestwoaccesspointstothesite. Therefore, project proposestoincreasethecurbradii at or near theseexitpoints, at theintersectionsof MerrimacWayandHarbor Blvd, MerrimacWayandShelleyCircle,andFair DriveandShelleyCircle, tofifty(50) feet toaccommodatethelargetrucksandequipment that maybestoredat theproposedEOCsite.

AccordingtoapreliminaryinvestigationrequestedbyCalTransin2012andpreparedbyKendraK. Levine, Instituteof TransportationStudiesLibrary, UCBerkeley, titledCurbRadiusandInjurySeverityat Intersections, “pedestriansafetyat intersectionsisdirectlyrelatedtothevehiclespeedsandthefacilitiesavailablefor pedestrianstooccupy. For intersectionswithlargecurbradii andwider crossingsections, pedestriansarepronetovehiclecollisions. Theseverityofinjuriestothesepedestrianscorrelatestothespeedof thevehiclestravelingthroughtheturn.”Writingmorespecifically, Levinestates:

Inmoreresidential areas, small curbradii of 15to25feet ispreferablebecauseitreducestrafficspeeds. Inareaswithsignificant trafficvolumefromlargetrucksandbuses, curbradii of 30to45feet accommodatetheturningradiusof thevehiclewithoutencroachment onother lanesor thecurb. Thelarger radii arelesssafefor bicyclesandpedestriansbecausetheyallowfor higher vehiclespeedsthroughtheturnandresult inlarger crossingdistances. Smaller curbradii createfacilitiesthat aremorepedestrianandbicyclefriendlythroughshorter crossingdistances.

Eachintersectionreferencedabovewill haveitscurbradiusexpandedtofifty(50) feet, whichisaradiussufficient toaccommodatethelargest tractor trailers. However, astheFDCsitewillprimarilybeusedfor housing, thevast majorityof thetrafficthat will usetheseintersectionsonadailybasiswill beprivatevehiclesandbicycles. Thereforetheextremelygenerouscurbradiiat theseintersectionsisverylikelytopermit higher vehiclespeedsthroughtheturnandresult inlarger crossingdistancesfor pedestriansandbicyclists.

TheDraft EIRalsostatesthat “theproject wouldnot includesiteimprovementsthat wouldinterferewithexistingpublictransit, bicycle, or pedestrianfacilities, or impedetheconstructionofnewor theexpansionof existingsuchfacilitiesinthefuture” (Draft EIR, Section4.13.5). Wedisagree. Theproposedchangestotheintersectionof MerrimacWayandHarbor BlvdwillinterferewiththeClassI multipurposetrail locatedonHarbor Blvd. Bywideningthecurbradiusto50feet at thisintersection, thesignificant number of pedestriansandbicyclistspresentlyusingthisfacilitywill beexposedtodangersassociatedwithhigher privatevehiclespeeds, allbecausethisintersectionmust onlyoccasionallyaccommodatethelargest vehicles.

Expandingthecurbradiusat thisintersectionalsounderminestheCity’spotential expansionofitsaward-winningbicyclefacilityonMerrimacWayintotheFDCsite. OncetheFDCsiteis 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: E8B80355-1F13-4B9C-B683-1D1A91D643E6 developedfor housing, MerrimacWaywill provideadirect routefor our newresidentstoaccessOrangeCoast College, JackHammett SportsComplex, theOrangeCountyFairgroundsandCostaMesaMiddleSchool, amongother amenities. Thelocationof CostaMesaMiddleSchoolclosetotheterminusof MerrimacWaymakesit verylikelythat youngstudentswill usetheMerrimacWaybicyclefacilityasasaferoutetoschool, andheightenstheinterest of theCityinensuringthat theintersectionbetweenMerrimacWayandHarbor Boulevardismadeassafeaspossiblefor bicyclistsandpedestrians.

CMABSComment #4
Fifty-foot turningradii at theintersectionsof Harbor BlvdandMerrimacWayandHarbor BlvdandFair Driveposeknownhazardstopedestriansandbicyclists. Theproject alsoconflictswiththeexistingClassI bicyclefacilityonHarbor BoulevardandtheCity’spotential expansionof theMerrimacWaybicyclefacilityintoFDC. Thereforewebelievethat theDraft EIRdoesnot containsufficient evidencetoconcludethat theproject will not “substantiallyincreasehazardsduetoageometricdesignfeature”. Werespectfullysubmit that theDraft EIRshouldberevisedtoincludeadiscussionof thesechangesandtomakeadeterminationastowhether theywillsubstantiallyincreasehazardsduetoageometricdesignfeature.

Conclusion
OnceagainweappreciatetheopportunitytoreviewtheDraft EIRandtoprovidefeedbacktotheCaliforniaGovernor’sOfficeof EmergencyServicesandtheDepartment of GeneralServicesReal EstateServicesDivision. Welookforwardtoupdatesregardingthisproject.

Sincerely,
TheBoardof theCostaMesaAlliancefor Better Streets
Russell Toler RalphTaboada
MikeLingle JennTanaka
FloMartin MarcVukcevich
DavidMartinez
5 DocuSign Envelope ID: E8B80355-1F13-4B9C-B683-1D1A91D643E6

From: HAUSER, JANET
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Southern Region Emergency Operations Center Project Draft EIR Comments Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 11:01:25 AM
Please see email below.

We would like to request that the State reconsider its choice of the Fairview Developmental Center property for its Southern Region Emergency Operations Center Project.

This is a densely populated area and would have multiple negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods, businesses and residents.

Thank you,
Carla & Phillip Mayer
Costa Mesa Residents
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: GREEN, BRENDA
To: TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Comments about the proposed location in Fairview property for the EOC currently in the planning stages Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 9:00:24 AM

From: Linda Witt-King <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 12:16 AM
To: STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>; MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; CONSTITUENT SERVICES
<[email protected]>; HARLAN, JEFFREY <[email protected]>; GAMEROS, LOREN <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>; CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>; HARPER, DON <[email protected]>; REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]>; GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>; HAUSER, JANET <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments about the proposed location in Fairview property for the EOC currently in the planning stages

Costa Mesa City Council and Mayor:

The following comments responding to Wendy Leese's Nextdoor post is the best advice I can offer in light of the present circumstances.

As it stands right now we are on a collision course wherein your unconstitutional ordinances and unlawful conversion of public property to private property are being noticed and require your immediate correction of same.

Responding to Wendy Leece's Nextdoor post:

Wendy I believe we can reclaim the entire Fairview property acquisition from the state because of the fraud that was perpetrated starting in 1960. My 211 page Cross-Complaint includes three Requests for Judicial Notice, the first of which presents my research and the documented evidence.
bit.ly/Renewing-Costa-Mesa
Wendy while I appreciate your encouragement to reach out to the City council, their hands are tied because of the legacy of complicity in the fraud by their predecessors when 55 years ago they enacted in 1968 the very unlawful and unconstitutional ordinances criminalizing people's adaptive behavior in the face of the massive fraud that was unfolding whereby they did the only thing available for themselves, that of making their home in their vehicle.

That's six decades of harm that has been imposed on the old people and the poor people and the disabled people who have been displaced from their habitat by these fraudulent actions that continue even unto today.

The only legitimate action to remedy this collusion of fraud that is available now to the present day sitting city council is for them to dissolve the current corporate municipal government and reorganize around a form of government that is truly representative of the residents and businesses in Costa Mesa.

All the assets of the now dissolved corporation will be returned to the residents by forming a member owned credit union that will serve as steward for all the properties that will be managed by the members of the credit union.

The current city council has no other legitimate option to consider. They have absolutely NO LEVERAGE to make the state move the project elsewhere.

The only option we have to protect ourselves from this encroachment is to take the property back, the full acquisition of over 740 acres.

The only way the current city council can serve the people of Costa Mesa is to dissolve the failed corporation and reorganize as an unincorporated town. Unless these members have the courage to step up to their responsibility in this pivotal issue, they are nothing but useless figure heads doing the bidding of their corporate owners, the federal government that formed Costa Mesa from a block grant in the mid-fifties and which the military industrial complex has occupied by landing their war plane in the children's playground in Lion's Park in 1960 as all of this unlawful conversion of public property to private profit generating property was starting to roll out.

It has been asserted by a Nextdoor contributor that according to the project document, the site selection for this project was directed by a federal agency and cannot be challenged even by the Governor.

My expanded comments to that assertion:

If that's true then the Mayor and the rest of the City Council absolutely must dissolve the failed municipal corporation due to these long standing multiple frauds, there by getting themselves out ahead of the issue before somebody else dissolves it for them and seeks more dire consequences for their inaction heretofore.

The City is already in receipt of my evidence of the frauds and can be held accountable for knowing about these crimes.

When we met in court for our jury selection preliminary to my jury trial in 2020, I offered to have the City review my evidence before deciding to go through with the cost of selecting a jury and going through the full trial. Instead, I offered that they might like to make an offer to settle by voluntarily overturning the unconstitutional ordinances and voluntarily providing a remedy that will correct the harm that has been caused to this current generation of victims of their criminal behavior.

Knowing with absolute certainty that NOTHING HAPPENS UNTIL BUSINESS HAPPENS, I am proposing that we implement what has now become the Gracious Nomad Academy and our proprietary Limbic Arc Mastermind Group Enterprise as defined in my documents published around this issue and my two websites. My business announcement of this endeavor can be found at this link:
my Gracious Nomad Academy and Limbic Arc Mastermind Group Enterprise business announcement:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Xd8nQxHXdjNC13er6

My 211 page Cross-Complaint, (found here:
bit.ly/Renewing-Costa-Mesa) which could not be filed a year ago when I brought it to the court to file so I simply began publishing it all aroundnti the public nat large; it has instead become a primer on the history and causes of homelessness in Costa Mesa.

My research proves without a doubt how Costa Mesa became Ground Zero and is culpable for ALL the instances of
homelessness in not only Costa Mesa but in the whole of Orange County as well because of their influence as they drove out vehicle dwellers trying to escape Costa Mesa's unlawful and unconstitutional ordinances and the surrounding cities followed suit.

With the judge's permission and knowledge I handed their corporate attorney and deputy attorney a 90+ page document that laid out the whole criminal complicity in clear detail.

The City received my evidence of the fraud and complicity to commit fraud and made no offer to settle or to even discuss the matter.

So it's on record that the city counsel is aware of the fraud that took place when, starting in 1960, the state violated the terms of the purchase agreement that the Fairview property acquisition was to be designated for public use only.

The current city council is also aware of the unlawful and unconstitutional ordinances that were enacted by their predecessors in 1968 - and to this point, they have done NOTHING to correct their predecessors' fraudulent actions.

In fact, they continue to enforce these unlawful ordinances and to profit from them unlawfully, continuing to cause irreparable harm to this generation of old people and poor people and disabled people with impunity.

That all by itself is misprision of treason.
mis·pri·sion
/ˌmisˈpriZH(ə)n/
HISTORICAL•LAW
noun: misprision of treason
the deliberate concealment of one's knowledge of a treasonable act or a felony Wendy Leece's post:

Please contact our City Council to oppose the State's Emergency Operations Center (EOC) planned for Fairview Developmental Center. We need to preserve the site for housing which the State requires! Once the EOC center goes in the housing opportunities will decrease. Check out Costamesa1st.com. Please share with all your friends in Newport Beach too. Here is info:

NEW! Proposed Emergency Operations Center at Fairview Developmental Center Comes With Impacts

The proposed EOC would be built on about 15 acres of FDC and would have an approximately 32,000 sq ft single-story office building, approximately 20,000 sq ft of warehouse space, a 120 ft communications tower and a military-grade helipad to accommodate Blackhawk helicopters.

Construction would take about
37 months and would entail the use of excavators, bulldozers, scrapers, loaders, backhoes, cranes, forklifts, and tractors. It would serve 23 million people living in Southern California.

If there was an emergency in one or more of the 11 counties served, the EOC could be operating 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. This project comes with many impacts, including how the City can plan the development of the remainder of FDC, aesthetics, noise and air pollution, and biological resource impacts on protected species, such as burrowing owls and white-tailed kites.

Comments to the draft Environmental Impact Report are due no later than October 20, 2023, at 6 p.m. https://www.costamesa1st.com/
Here are City Council Contacts:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Grace and Radiant Light,
Linda Witt-King
714-360-5376 cell or text
Icanseeclearlynow.shop
//Limbicarc.com/wellspring
//Patreon.com/Dragonflycoalition

From: HAUSER, JANET
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Southern Region Emergency Operations Center Project Draft EIR Comments Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 8:40:32 AM
Attachments: image003.jpg
Please see email below.

From: Geoff West <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 2:17 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>; ",katrina.foley"@ocgov.com; ",senator.min"@senate.ca.gov; ",assemblymember.petri-norris"@asm.ca.gov Subject: Southern Region Emergency Operations Center Project Draft EIR Comments

Ms. Terry Ash, Senior Environmental Planner
℅ Dudek SENT VIA EMAIL TO:

California Department of General Services
[email protected]

Real Estate Division, Project Management and FROM:

Development [email protected] 2635 North 1st Street, Ste. 149
San Jose, California 95134
SUBJECT: Proposed Emergency Operations Center at Fairview Development Center Dear Ms. Ash,
Recently I attended a meeting at the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) in Costa Mesa, along with nearly 100 of my neighbors, to present our concerns about the proposed establishment of a Southern Emergency Operations Center (EOC) on 15 acres of the more than 100 acre Fairview Developmental Center site. I think it’s safe to say that most, if not all, of us came away disappointed.

This meeting was poorly advertised, hence the small turnout from a city of more than 112,000 souls. The venue was inadequate for this meeting. Because of the layout - wide instead of deep - only about a third of the attendees could actually see and read the slides in the presentation. It was attended by a few former elected officials, some “regulars” at city events and a large number of newcomers - residents who lived nearby and had just heard about the meeting a day or two before. Also in the audience were current elected officials - Mayor John Stephens and Mayor Pro Tem Jeffrey Harlan - as well as appointed officials like Planning Commission Chairman Adam Ereth and many members of the city senior staff.

It’s my view that much of the disappointment felt by members of the audience was because there were very few - I hesitate to say “no” - answers provided to members of the public who spoke. I counted 34 - 35, if you count Mayor Stephens, who was sandbagged into speaking by a constituent. Most of the speakers didn’t really know enough about the project to present clear, concise concerns and questions were seldom answered.

As a 50 year resident of Costa Mesa and one who has followed (and written about) city issues for more than two decades, I came away from this meeting very concerned about the plan as explained to us by Laura Masterson of Dudek. Some of my concerns are listed below. 1-THE STATE GIVETH….The State has declared the Fairview Developmental Center as “surplus”, and made it available for potential much-needed housing in Costa Mesa. In fact, the State recently provided $3.5 million to Costa Mesa to help with the planning - zoning, etc. - for the site for future housing development. Since the State also saddled Costa Mesa with RHNA requirements demanding we plan for 11,760 new dwelling units in a city 99% built- out, the availability of the FDC for some future housing was good news, and the City is moving forward with the plans for the site.
2-….AND TAKETH AWAY. The proverbial “other shoe” dropped when we learned the State decided to take away 15 acres of the site for a proposed Emergency Operations Center and that this center would include a 35,000 square foot office building, a 20,000 square foot warehouse/garage PLUS a helipad and 120 foot illuminated communication tower! In my view, none of these facilities are compatible in any way with the housing that will be planned for that site. The presentation showed the flight path footprint for the helipad as well as the proposed location of the communication tower. Well, as a man who has flown helicopters, I can tell you that the presence of that helipad so close to residential uses is unacceptable! And the communication tower is problematic, too. Nobody will want to open their curtains to view the sunset over the golf course with the blinking red lights on that tower ruining the view. 3-WHAT IT MIGHT BECOME. This more than 100 acre site could go a very long way to helping meet our City (and State, for that matter) requirement for additional housing. There are those who view this location as a kind of “Village of Fairview” within the boundaries of Costa Mesa. It’s a site surrounded on 3 sides by a municipal golf course and is about a mile from our Civic Center and the Orange County Fairgrounds. Given the opportunity to plan for it, that site could be the home of, for example, several high-rise buildings providing true “affordable housing” in a region that drastically needs such housing stock. It could become a model of forward-thinking planning, with playgrounds and other park areas with walking and bicycling paths, and services, like a market, pharmacies, entertainment venues, etc. spotted throughout the site. Depending on the number of housing units built, there might even be a need for an elementary school on the site.
4-INCOMPATIBILITY. The creation of the EOC as planned would make the housing plans described above untenable. The EOC would have to be staffed 24/7/365, which means cars and large trucks moving to and from the site. In the case of an “emergency”, this would be magnified many-fold. Of course, the helipad makes any kind of housing, much less affordable housing, a non-starter. As one speaker at the meeting said, (paraphrasing), "This is just another example of people who have no options - poor people in those “affordable” housing units - getting the shaft!” Yes, it’s true - nobody who can afford to live elsewhere would even think of living in the flight path of large, military transport helicopters. This is a GREAT opportunity to demonstrate that a community of affordable housing units doesn’t have to be a slum-in-waiting, with people packed cheek-by-jowl! This could be a place where we all would point to with pride - but not if it’s saddled with the EOC as currently planned. 5-ACCESS. Another of the problems viewed by many of us at the meeting was access to the site. Yes, the map showed a route from Harbor Blvd. along the perimeter of the of the FDC to the location of the proposed EOC. If this site is chosen, the intersection at Harbor Blvd. - Costa Mesa's de facto “Main Street” - will require major modification. Also, there really is no other acceptable access route unless one is carved through the golf course. Is that the plan? You can’t really have an Emergency Operations Center with only one way in and out, can you?
6-WATER ACCESS? I have not reviewed the complete Draft EIR, but am told by those who have that there is a reference to the FDC site having “access to waterways”. Well, if you’re looking for a way to bring people and supplies to the site via water, you’re pretty much out of luck. The closest “waterway” would be the Santa Ana River, which runs, such as is is, within about a mile of this site. However, it is NOT navigable - it’s barely a trickle most of the year.

If Newport Harbor was the intended source of water access, it’s at least 5 miles away, is a small boat harbor and certainly not adequate to deliver large quantities of supplies to the site because it lacks the space and depth to accommodate large craft. 7-A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE. During the presentation, “alternatives” were discussed. “Alternative 3” - 24 acres a few miles away at the corner of Red Hill Avenue and Victory Road in Tustin, was described as “environmentally superior”. Why, then, is THAT site not the preferred location for this new EOC? It’s a larger chunk of land, currently undeveloped, in a commercial zone. It’s much closer to freeways, providing essential travel venues in case of an “emergency” and the surface streets surrounding that site make it much more practical for an EOC location.

When compared to the proposed site at the FDC, the Tustin site wins, hands-down! It’s much larger, not surrounded by incompatible uses and is MUCH closer to freeway access. 8-TIMING AND CONSTRUCTION. We understand from sources at the Department of General Services that the FDC EOC would cost north of $180 million and would take well into 2027 to complete. This timing would certainly conflict with any proposed housing construction planned for the FDC site. I doubt any builder would choose to arm-wrestle with government contractors over the use of access roads simultaneously as we tried to meet other State requirements to build more housing.

Thank you for considering my view, and those of my friends and neighbors who also took the time to write to you on this very important issue. We hope Governor Newsom will see this plan as a hindrance to his goal of more affordable housing. We are told Mayor Stephens intends to personally address this issue with him in the very near future. Please abandon the plan for the EOC at the FDC.

Geoff West
1973 Aliso Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
[email protected]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Kathy Esfahani
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; HARLAN, JEFFREY; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON; CITY CLERK; LE, JENNIFER
Subject: Agenda item New Business 3: Opposing placement of Southern Region Emergency Operations Center at Fairview Developmental Center Site
Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 10:10:17 PM
Dear Mayor Stephens and Council Members,
I am writing to you on behalf of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition (the Coalition), a 17-year-old grassroots association of local advocates which promotes policies that will create affordable housing for our city’s very low- and extremely low-income residents. We are dismayed to learn the state is proposing to locate a “Southern Region Emergency Operations Center” at the Fairview Developmental Center site (FDC). Such a move would seriously hamper Costa Mesa’s ability to meet its state-mandated RHNA goals, and especially hurt the production of housing for our city’s poorest, most vulnerable residents.

Costa Mesa’s 2021-2029 Housing Element identifies the 109-acre FDC as the intended site for 2300 housing units, with 40% of those units (920!) designated lower income. Adding 920 lower income units would be a stunning accomplishment in Costa Mesa. Moreover, it is achievable, given Costa Mesa City Council’s strong support for affordable housing construction at FDC, and Governor Newsom’s declared commitment to help make such construction happen. These ambitious housing plans at FDC, however, are in direct conflict with the proposal to use up to 15 acres of the site for a new Emergency Operations Center.

Please make sure the “powers that be” up in Sacramento recognize what is at stake. There is tremendous local momentum behind the city’s plan to create a vibrant, master planned, mixed income housing village at FDC. Given its size and central location along the major thoroughfare of Harbor Boulevard, FDC holds tremendous promise for meeting a significant part of the city’s housing (especially affordable
housing) needs. Those housing plans would
be seriously compromised by the placement of the proposed Emergency Operations Center, including a helipad, on the FDC site.

Surely the state can find some other place for a new Emergency Operations Center. The FDC site is simply too valuable a resource for meeting our community’s pressing need for affordable housing. California must not squander this unique opportunity to create a substantial amount of lower income affordable housing in Costa Mesa.

Our Coalition will submit a letter expressing these concerns to Ms. Ash at the California Department of General Services. We also want you, our City Council, to know how strongly we oppose the plan to locate the Emergency Operations Center at FDC.

Respectfully,
Kathy Esfahani
Kathy Esfahani,
On behalf of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition

From: Costa Mesa First
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CITY COUNCIL; CITY CLERK
Subject: Southern Region Emergency Operations Center Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Comments; SCH No. 2023030046
Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 8:54:21 AM
Attachments: Ltr to State Dept of General Services re DEIR comments.pdf Dear Ms. Ash,
Attached is our comment letter with respect to the Southern Region Emergency Operations Center Project (SCH No. 2023030046). Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions.

Cynthia McDonald
Assistant Treasurer
Costa Mesa First
PO Box 2282
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884

October 17, 2023

VIA EMAIL – [email protected]

State of California
Department of General Services
Real Estate Division, Project Management
Attn: Terry Ash, Senior Environmental Planner
2635 North First Street, Suite 149
San Jose, California 95134
Re: Southern Region Emergency Operations Center Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Comments; SCH No. 2023030046
Dear Ms. Ash:

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Southern Region Emergency Operations Center Project (“Project”). The Project would site a 35,000 sq. ft. office building, a 20,000 sq. ft. warehouse, a military-grade helipad (unknown size), a 120 ft. communications tower and the extension of Shelley Circle, a roadway within Fairview Developmental Center (“FDC”). The Project would be located next to proposed high-density housing for low- and very low-income residents, park space and possibly community center and gardens and a school/daycare. In addition, there is a recreation area (municipal golf course) adjacent to the Project, and a neighborhood of existing affordable housing occupied primarily by low-income residents approximately 700 ft. away. It is about 1,500 ft. from Fairview Park, a nature park that contains environmentally sensitive species and habitat areas.

Despite the claim that the Project “is not considered to be a project of regionwide significance,”1 the Project is a regional Emergency Operations Center (“EOC”) in Southern California serving

1 See page 4.9-9 (Section 4.9.5) of DEIR.

State of California
Department of General Services
Real Estate Division, Project Management
Attn: Terry Ash, Senior Environmental Planner
October 17, 2023

Page 2 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
as a hub for critical emergency management planning and training programs in the Office of Emergency Services Southern Region, which serves nearly 23 million people and covers 11 counties. Should the EOC in Mather become inoperative, the Project would be able to mirror the Mather operation to provide services to the entire state.

We are submitting the following comments for consideration by the State of California’s Department of General Services (“State”). The DEIR is deficient because it either fails to analyze, provide accurate analysis, or delays analysis of significant environmental impacts, making it impossible for the residents of Costa Mesa to understand and meaningfully consider the issues raised by the Project and any attempts by the State to mitigate significant environmental impacts associated with the Project. Additional accurate environmental review of the Project is required under CEQA. Further, serious concerns about the Project’s compliance with several housing laws remain unaddressed and impede or constrict the ability of the City of Costa Mesa (“City”) to comply with those laws and affirmatively further fair housing. In addition, the engagement of the residents of Costa Mesa has been minimal, so much so that the requirement under CEQA to inform government decisionmakers and the public about the potential environmental effects of proposed activities and to prevent significant, avoidable environmental damage has largely been unmet.

The DEIR identifies Alternative 3, an environmentally preferred alternate location in Tustin2.

For the following reasons, we urge the State to reject the current FDC site and select Alternative 3 instead.

1. The DEIR does not disclose that Project will adversely impact City’s ability to comply with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330).

The DEIR acknowledges that the Project will reduce the availability of land available for residential land use designations. However, the State fails to recognize that removal of 15 plus acres from the remainder of FDC will detrimentally impact the future availability of housing capacity or provide any mitigation of that impact. The City’s Housing Element, as accepted by the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), does not provide for further upzoning of other parcels to ensure that there is “no net loss in residential capacity” given the elimination of the acreage for this project. The City has already paid with its own funds the incredible expense of a consultant to assist it in the burden of complying with the new laws regarding Housing Elements and the rezoning of the city in connection therewith. This Project would further burden the City, and thereby the residents of Costa Mesa, with the financial impact

2 See page 7-11 (Section 7.3.3) of DEIR.

State of California
Department of General Services
Real Estate Division, Project Management
Attn: Terry Ash, Senior Environmental Planner
October 17, 2023

Page 3 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
of redoing zoning in areas outside of FDC to comply with the HCD’s and various housing laws’ requirements, in particular the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.

2. Project violates SB 188 by failing to prioritize affordable housing and open space on FDC property.

In June 2022, the California Legislature adopted a budget that, among other things, gave the City of Costa Mesa funding for the management of the planning of affordable housing on FDC.

See SB 188, which added Section 14670.31 to the Government Code.

Government Code Section 14670.31(a)(7) states “It is the intent of the Legislature that the Fairview Developmental Center property be utilized for a mixed-use development, including mixed-income housing. The development would include and prioritize affordable housing, including at least 200 units of permanent supportive housing, and open space.” [emphasis added]

Government Code Section 14670.31(c)(4) provides “The agreement shall require that housing be a priority in the planning process and that any housing proposal determined to be appropriate for the property shall include affordable housing. The agreement and the development plan shall provide for housing and affordable housing at a level consistent with the January 2020 council- adopted strategy of 1,500 units and the housing assessment in the Department of General Services’ 2021 Infrastructure Assessment of up to 2,500 units for the site.” [emphasis added]

The Project conflicts with the stated priority in the legislation, as well as Governor Newsom’s two executive orders. The State is interfering with the City’s responsibility to manage the planning of affordable housing by removing the most desirable parcel from the FDC property prior to the City’s completion of the planning process. Further, the State is impeding the growth of the city by proposing a new roadway on a parcel that could be zoned entirely for affordable housing or open space were the roadway not there. The housing that would be built on the remainder of FDC will be accompanied by parks, playgrounds, childcare center(s), and community gathering places that are required to be protected from the adverse impacts of emissions, particularly during a full-blown emergency or in the event the existing EOC in Mather is inoperative. The DEIR does not provide a mitigation plan for those impacts.

3. Proposed military-grade helipad renders most of remaining parcels of FDC unsuitable for market rate and fair housing.

While the City has not completed planning of the remainder of the FDC site, the California Legislature and the Governor have prioritized quality affordable housing for veterans and those with permanent disabilities. Locating the Project, including its military-grade helipad, on FDC State of California
Department of General Services
Real Estate Division, Project Management
Attn: Terry Ash, Senior Environmental Planner
October 17, 2023

Page 4 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
would constrict planning of the remainder of FDC for those with PTSD, often veterans. Further, it discourages developers from building market-rate housing to offset the cost of providing affordable units because the market-rate housing would be a tough sell given the requirement to disclose to potential buyers the existence and use of the helipad. The DEIR suggests that helicopter noise would only be as loud as a vacuum cleaner at three meters.3 Anyone who has ever been below a Blackhawk helicopter during takeoff or descent will disagree. The report fails to disclose that the vibration and noise from the helicopters will fluctuate due to height, terrain and buildings that create echoes, such as the new apartment buildings on Harbor adjacent to the golf course. The DEIR needs to be revised to disclose accurate noise levels in the flight paths and projected vibration and noise levels when the remainder of the FDC property is built out with housing and mixed-use structures. Further, the statement “Helicopter activity during emergency operations is speculative and cannot be quantified”4 is erroneous. The Office of Emergency Services has responded to emergencies throughout the State of California for years and must supply data on the use of helicopters during those emergencies as an example of the range of anticipated use.

4. Depictions are missing and/or inaccurate.

Many of the depictions are inaccurate because they fail to show the color and true height of the tower. In addition, there are no depictions of elevations of the flight path of helicopters (or the helicopters themselves) that would allow residents to understand the possible impacts of noise and aesthetics. The following depictions need to be added:
• All depictions of tower must show orange and white paint, all communications equipment, and red lights on towers, and must including daytime and nighttime depictions
• Full depiction of tower from golf course that includes communications equipment (do not cut off the top of the tower)
• Depiction of tower from second story apartment on Joann Street and from top floor of new apartments on Harbor Boulevard adjacent to golf course • Depictions of tower from hillside near the train station in Fairview Park • Depiction of elevation view of helicopter flight paths (takeoff and landing) and expected level of vibration and decibel level of noise at elevations every 500 ft. from all reasonable viewpoints, including Joann Street and new Harbor Boulevard apartments, Mesa Verde

3 See pages 4.10-1 (Section 4.10.1) and 4.10-13 (Section 4.10.5) of DEIR. 4 See page 3-16 (Section 3.5.5) of DEIR.

State of California
Department of General Services
Real Estate Division, Project Management
Attn: Terry Ash, Senior Environmental Planner
October 17, 2023

Page 5 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
housing, Harbor Boulevard bicycle trail, Fairview Park train station and hillside in Fairview Park near Tanager Drive

5. Widening of roadways will discourage use of active transportation and likely increase GHG emissions; extension of Shelley Circle is a taking of property.

The benefits of active transportation are many, including the reduction of GHG emissions. As noted in the DEIR, the widening of the roadways, enlarging intersections and the construction of a new asphalt roadway that is contemplated by the Project can discourage alternative forms of transportation such as biking and walking.5 Larger turning radii at intersections is a well-known cause of pedestrian and bicyclist deaths because larger turning radii increases motor vehicle speeds. Given the new housing that is to be built on this site, if anything, traffic should be slowed. The asphalt roadway extension will not include sidewalks or bikeways and the reconfigured parking areas will be demolished and trees removed. We request that the State reconsider the proposed parking lot and roadway “improvements” and use strategies that address sustainability and climate protection concerns instead, including adding protected bicycle lanes and pedestrian facilities to any roadways that will be “improved” as part of the Project.

The queuing of vehicles to enter the facility does not provide assurance that the Project will assist in the meeting of regional emissions reduction targets established by the California Air Resources Board. Further, the DEIR states “If the emissions reduction targets cannot be met through the SCS, an Alternative Planning Strategy may be developed that shows how the targets would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures of policies. SB 375 also offers local governments regulatory and other incentives to encourage more compact new development and transportation alternatives.”6 That unfairly places the burden of the failure of this Project to meet the Sustainable Communities Strategy on the City by backwards planning of the remainder of the FDC property in order to mitigate the Project’s impacts. The State needs to take responsibility of mitigating those impacts itself and provide a plan in the DEIR.

In addition, the placement of the extension of Shelley Circle would render a parcel that is one of the few undeveloped parcels on FDC unusable for open space or to be developed with housing.

This suggests that the State wants this parcel to remain unusable so that, should it decide in the future that the Project should be expanded, this parcel is available for more warehouse space or a

5 See page 4.13-3 (Section 14.13.2) of DEIR.
6 See page 4.13-4 (Section 4.13.2) of DEIR.

State of California
Department of General Services
Real Estate Division, Project Management
Attn: Terry Ash, Senior Environmental Planner
October 17, 2023

Page 6 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
larger helipad. In other words, this is the camel’s nose under the tent and is a taking of land it is not entitled to, as any property that is not part of the Project is subject to SB 188.

6. Wildlife surveys must be done prior to Project approval; State has not analyzed the whole of Project.

Under CEQA, the State must analyze the Project’s impacts, which include “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonable foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” Please refer to CEQA Guideline Section 15378; Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1220. This standard is consistent with the principle that “environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones— each with a minimal potential impact on the environment—which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.” Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal3d 376, 396.

The DEIR states “focused surveys for burrowing owl are recommended to be conducted following CDFW protocol to determine the presence/absence of this listed species in the study area. If present on site, development of the proposed project may result in significant direct impacts to burrowing owl absent mitigation.”7 The DEIR indicates these studies would be done in Spring 2024, after approval of the Project, and just shortly before the onset of construction in late Summer 2024. The DEIR does not analyze the Project’s foreseeable indirect impacts, including the impact on the burrowing owls during nesting season. These surveys must be done as part of the Environmental Impact Report and include all pertinent seasons, including nesting season. By cutting short the environmental analysis prior to approval of the Project, the State violates CEQA and makes new, accurate analysis of the Project necessary after approval. It is impermissible to delay studies and offer some vague suggestion of mitigation measures that might occur at some date after the approval the Project.

The statement “Nevertheless, due to the ample opportunities for wildlife movement to the west and south of the study area, the project site does not function as a wildlife corridor, nor does it facilitate the movement of wildlife between two larger habitat blocks.”8 is contradicted by the fact that a wildlife survey for burrowing owl, a migratory bird, is needed. FDC has been used by migratory birds and local wildlife as a wildlife corridor. The linkages or migration corridors between habitat areas must be preserved.

7 See page 4.3-5 (Section 4.3.1) of DEIR.
8 See page 4.3-6 (Section 4.3.1) of DEIR.

State of California
Department of General Services
Real Estate Division, Project Management
Attn: Terry Ash, Senior Environmental Planner
October 17, 2023

Page 7 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
In addition, a comment letter from The U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife must be solicited.

7. DEIR is missing information on storage tanks and emergency fuel supply.

The Project would include two emergency generators, requiring diesel fuel tanks capable of providing 72-hour backup. The DEIR does not provide any information about the size of those tanks, or whether there will also be storage of fuel supply for vehicles used in the operation of the Project after its completion. Will there be fuel storage for delivery trucks and/or other vehicles used at the project in the event of an emergency that makes local commercial fuel supplies unavailable? Will there be fuel storage for the helicopters that will use the helipad? The DEIR needs to include this information and a description of the impacts, and any mitigation measures related thereto. Without this information, the public is unable to evaluate if the statement that use of the emergency generators is “less than significant” is true and the mitigation measures are appropriate.9

8. Community Engagement and Awareness Plan.

At the initial meeting regarding the scoping of the Project, several members of the public expressed concern about the lack of notice and the timing of that meeting. In our letter to you dated April 13, 2023, we requested that any future meetings be held on both weeknight and weekends in order to get maximum participation. The recent meeting on the DEIR at the auditorium at FDC was an example of what the State should not do. Numerous complaints from the public about the lack of notice, combined with the inability to see the material shown on the small projection screen, and a merely cursory review of the Project left the public feeling like they knew no more about the Project after the meeting than they did before. That meeting did not adequately meet the intent of CEQA to inform the public and government decisionmakers public about the potential environmental effects of the Project and the State’s plans to prevent significant, avoidable environmental damage. The State (or its consultant with representatives of the State) needs to hold additional meetings at times convenient to the public at which the Project, its impacts and mitigation are fully explained. A larger projection screen that enables the public to see the information presented is required. In addition, since this is a project of regional importance, widening the area of notice for any meetings to the adjoining cities of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach is appropriate.

Should the State ultimately decide to continue with the Project at FDC, Costa Mesa residents and business owners need notification of training exercises or an emergency event that causes the EOC to operate at full capacity in order to prevent unnecessary calls to the Costa Mesa Police

9 See page 1-7 (Section 1.7) of DEIR.

State of California
Department of General Services
Real Estate Division, Project Management
Attn: Terry Ash, Senior Environmental Planner
October 17, 2023

Page 8 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
Department. Residents and business owners need to know there will be a disruption in the ability to normally conduct business and their lives. The DEIR needs to include an awareness plan or a coordination plan with the Costa Mesa Police Department.

9. Alternative site in Tustin is a superior site.

The State has erred in its selection of FDC as the preferred site for the Project as opposed to the alternative site in Tustin (“Alternative 3”). The FDC property is close in proximity to housing, much of it affordable and whose residents are 80% people of color. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 ranks the nearby census tract at a pollution burden of 46%, which, for a neighborhood so close to a municipal golf course and receiving the benefit of ocean breezes, is remarkably high. In addition, that census tract is near to other census tracts with higher burdens, including Census Tract 6059063605, which has a pollution burden of 86%. The residences are older buildings, many of which do not have central heating and air conditioning or air filtration systems. The residents in these census tracts, and others, would not only be impacted by the operation of the Project, but by the actual construction of the Project. This Project would exacerbate the environmental and health problems faced by the families that live nearby.

Alternative 3 is located in an industrial area next to the U.S. Army Reserve Center and a short distance to the Orange County Sheriff's Regional Training Academy. It is just as close to John Wayne Airport as the FDC site and is even closer to the former Marine Corps Air Station that was a major center for Marine Corps helicopter aviation on the Pacific Coast for many years. It has the proper acreage, proximity to major highways, space to accommodate multiple emergency vehicles and has the ability to locate the helipad and communication tower on its site. It would be more secure than FDC because it would not be next to a golf course or housing, but rather the Army Reserve Center that is already a secure site. It meets the criteria of siting the EOC “. . . on a property that is removed from high-traffic public areas . . .” and is far better suited than FDC which will be developed into high-density housing and associated uses, including multi-user paths and vehicular roadways.

The DEIR indicates that it selected FDC as the Project site based on the criteria that FDC is near a navigable waterway “should waterborne emergency response be needed during an emergency.”10 FDC is not adjacent to a navigable waterway. The closest navigable waterway to FDC is Newport Harbor (a recreational harbor and not a deep-water port) and/or the Pacific Ocean. The proximity of Newport Harbor to FDC versus the Tustin location is negligible given the proximity of the Tustin location to the Costa Mesa Freeway, which joins with Newport

10 See page 7-11 (Section 7.3.3) of DEIR.

State of California
Department of General Services
Real Estate Division, Project Management
Attn: Terry Ash, Senior Environmental Planner
October 17, 2023

Page 9 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
Boulevard that extends down to Newport Harbor. Using this criterion to attempt to eliminate the selection of the Tustin location is farcical.

Further, Alternative 3’s site is not privately owned.11 It is owned by the South Orange County Community College District that is part of the State's public higher education system.

10. Conclusion.

For the reasons above, we request that the State reject further consideration of FDC for the site of the EOC. Alternatively, we request that the information above be added to the DEIR and that the report be recirculated for comment and additional meetings with the public be held so as to conform with CEQA.

Thank you for your attention. Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions.

Very truly yours,

Richard J. Huffman
Treasurer

Cynthia McDonald
Assistant Treasurer

cc: Assembly Member Cottie Petrie-Norris
Senator Dave Min
Supervisor Katrina Foley
Costa Mesa Mayor and City Council

Costa Mesa First’s mission is to educate Costa Mesans about planning policies in Costa Mesa so they make knowledgeable choices when voting. We encourage residents to choose walkable, bikeable , and inclusive neighborhoods, and the land use and transportation policies and investments needed to make Costa Mesa flourish.

Our primary objective is to require Costa Mesa’s leaders to put the residents of Costa Mesa first.

11 Ibid.

From: [email protected]
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Just Cause
Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 12:07:17 PM
Now that I have read the Just Cause 12 page document,
I find the following to be unjust to landlords.
. I strongly feel that this government overreach and private property invasion that the government needs to leave I to the property owner.
. We are hardworking people, not lawyers.
. Page 6 IV II-
. Page 6 C
Pulling permits before a tenant moves out is ridiculous because if the tenant doesn’t leave, the permit expires. . Page 6 D- this is sheer Communism. Get out of my business. . 403B should read 1 month.
403C overreach / should be struck
404C totally unfair . Double gouging. Rent caps and multiple months of rent refund.

Sec. 9 -404 H
Should be struck down due to C.
9-405 C, D, E excessive paperwork in notifications.
940 A Landlords can only recover 1 month’s rent from tenant because he willfully held over the unit, but they can recover 3 months rent for the same action.

I just to landlords. Needs to be struck.

B and C- The courts are already clogged enough. More lawsuits are not the answer. More government lawsuits.

Why are you trying to sue me? I’m trying to provide housing in the city and have turn key. Pastor New can I send it?
David Miller
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Dahlia Gold
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Dispensary At Mesa Verde
Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 12:44:27 PM
Hello,
My husband and I purchased our Mesa Verde home in 2019, after coveting the neighborhood for years. I use dispensaries regularly and I don’t mind driving ten, maybe fifteen minutes to Santa Ana to purchase cannabis oil cartridges to vape.

The dispensaries I frequent are in LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREAS. I also don’t mind having a SMALL HANDFUL of dispensaries in NON RESIDENTIAL neighborhoods in Costa Mesa.

I’m concerned about the following:

1.) The total number of dispensary approvals in Costa Mesa and

2.) The Type of locations (zoning / APPROPRIATE businesses) adjacent to Mesa Verde and other residential neighborhoods.

Additionally, I believe collectively the Mesa Verde neighborhood feels this dispensary location encroaches on our way of life.

And besides, aren’t we the City of the Arts?
Thank you kindly in advance for your thoughtful consideration! Sincerely,
Dahlia Gold Straight
Mesa Verde, Costa Mesa
Dahlia
“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.” ~ Albert Einstein
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Victor Cao
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: New Business Item #2 - Just Cause Ordinance Comment Letter Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 3:06:31 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
2023-10-17 Costa Mesa Just Cause Ordinance.pdf
On behalf of the California Apartment Association and Apartment Association of Orange County, we are submitting this letter in opposition to New Business Item #2 related to the city’s consideration of a just cause eviction ordinance. We would appreciate if you could file this onto the public record and with members of city council.

Thank you,

CAA Victor Cao
Senior Vice President, Local Public Affairs
California Apartment Association
[email protected] • (949) 474-1411
980 Ninth Street, Suite 1430, Sacramento, CA 95814
caanet.org • Compliance • Advocacy • Education • Insurance • Ethics

October 17, 2023

SENT VIA EMAIL TO: [email protected]

The Honorable John Stephens
Mayor
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Re: New Business Item #2 – Just Cause Eviction Ordinance

Mayor John Stephens and Members of City Council:

On behalf of Costa Mesa ’s rental housing providers, the California Apartment Association and Apartment Association of Orange County (Associations) express concerns about adoption of a local just cause eviction ordinance . The Associations’ recommendation is to forgo a local ordinance and adhere to state law as recently amended by Senate Bill 567 (SB 567) , which provides several key elements including:

• Requiring disclosure and noticing for substantial remodels; and • Accountability for owner/family move-ins; and
• Enforcement by the attorney general, county counsel, or city attorney; and • Remedies including injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages three times the amount of actual damages, and attorney’s fees.

Rather than having to navigate a patchwork of laws across various cities , state law creates consistency for both tenants and rental housing providers can accurately rely on. Local ordinances that govern the same subject matter as state law can be problematic. In the case of the City of San Diego, their local just cause ordinance adopted years prior to the California Tenant Protect Action of 2019 (AB 1482) remained outdated for three years before rushing to catch up in 2022.

The city’s proposed ordinance is problematic in two distinct areas: (1) it creates an additional layer of notices to the city and (2) requires owners to pay an additional month’s rent (or two -month’s rent) as a cash settlement.

2 State Protections in Practice
Tenants and owners who mutually agree to, in writing, a lease contract with a defined expiration date have abundant time to plan their futures. It should be noted that l andlords cannot unilaterally lease contracts without cause until the end of term. The vast majority of renters who have a lease of one year or longer will receive a 60 -day notice to vacate, be eligible for one-month’s rent for relocation assistance , and a return of their security deposit within 21 days under state law . Just as tenants maintain their privilege of being released from contract, a n owner should have every right to carry out their reinvestments into their property or house their own family members at the expiration of a lease without additional constraints that the city’s proposed just cause eviction ordinance imposes.

A NOTICE FOR A NOTICE
The city’s proposed ordinance requires written notices be sent to a city P.O. Box within 72 hours of issuing the notice to terminate to the tenant . In short, the draft ordinance requires written notice that a written notice has been issued. The noticing requirement is an additional layer of bureaucracy for both city administrators and rental housing providers. City employees will have to maintain physical paper records, redundancy, extension of retention records to assist lawsuits , and/or require manual data entry with paper being unnecessarily disposed of for over 24,000 renting households.

Leases are treated as civil contractual issues under state law. Should a tenant or landlord have a dispute, either party can file a lawsuit (and discovery) to have their case decided by a judge. As a civil matter, no further noticing to the city is necessary. Rental housing providers will have already applied for city permits and filed applicable notices directly with the courts and tenant. For the purpose of preventing unnecessary waste and bureaucracy, CAA requests that the city consider elimination of the city notice and proceed with state law as amended by SB 567.

IMPACTS OF ENHANCED CASH SETTLEMENTS ON OWNER/FAMILY MOVE -IN

AND SUBSTANTIAL REMODELS
The city’s proposed ordinance requires two-month’s rent as a cash payout for any no-fault just cause reason including an event where an owner/family-member moves into their own home or substantial remodels at lease expiration . Approval of SB 567 addressed many concerns that Costa Mesa city officials expressed at prior meetings. A summary of SB 567 and the impact of draft ordinance are further identified in the following subsections.

Owner/Family Move -In
SB 567 introduced new accountability measures for when an owner or their family member needs housing:

• Owners or their family members (natural persons) must reside in the unit for at least 12 months and move in within 90 days of the previous tenant’s departure ; and • Limits set on re-renting the unit if the landlord doesn’t comply ; and • Enforcement of violations include injunctive relief , actual damages, punitive damages of up to three times the actual damages, and attorney’s fees.

The city proposes an enhanced cash payout of two-month’s rent for all no-fault evictions including circumstance s where the owner or their family members are experiencing their own crisis. In many 3 cases, adoption of local ordinance arbitrarily inserts new requirements and changes all expectations in the middle of the lease term. In addition to paying exorbitant healthcare or other crisis expenses, the owner’s family would be required to up to $9,440 when a lease has naturally expired. A lease should be allowed to end without any additional requirements, especially if a family has waited patiently and followed current law.

Substantial Rehabilitation (inclusive of remodeling, rehabilitation, and demolishment) Under existing law, substantial remodels mean any modification of any major syste m. Evictions for aesthetic improvements are prohibited. Since the city’s initial discussion around tenant issues last year, much has changed as it relates to how substantial remodels proceed. SB 567 prescribes the following:

• A written description of substantial remodel to be completed ; and o Approximate duration of substantial remodel ; and
o Copy of permit or permit(s) required to undertake substantial remodel or demolition; and
• An opportunity for the tenant to continue renting unit at the original rental rate if improvements have not been commenced or completed; and
• Notification that if tenant is interested in reoccupying the rental unit, the tenant shall inform the owner of their interest following the substantial remodel and provide the owner the tenant’s address, phone number, and email address ; and • And enforcement by legal authorities including Costa Mesa’s city attorney.

Several advocate groups, including Promotores de Salud de Orange County, testified at Sacramento legislative hearings in favor of Senate Bill 567 citing that the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 and local regulations were inadequate . With the adoption of SB 567, those concerns have been addressed.

City officials have expressed a desire to update existing housing stock, however it is a balancing act.

Allowing owners to adequately plan substantial remodels improves overall quality of life by bringing rental homes up to the latest building code standards. The city’s proposed cash assistance beyond state law upsets that balancing act and becomes an added expense that housing providers will need to recoup from following tenancies .

Under the most strenuous conditions, the city’s proposed extra cash payouts become a deterrent to capital improvements altogether. Renovating an aging 100 -unit apartment in Costa Mesa requires careful planning and capital. Under the ordinance, would require additional financing of $250,000 at all-time high commercial interest rates. Such costs are likely absorbed in new tenancies, bu t the reality is that the improvements are likely deterred under current market conditions and new regulation. As such, outdat ed housing can remain a legally non -conforming use due to grandfathering and the city’s beautification goals remain unfulfilled.

Conclusion
With nearly 97% of available rental units already occupied by existing residents, the Associations recognize that the challenges that come with the lack of housing can only be met with housing production. According to permit data, Costa Mesa built on average 85 homes per year over the past five years. The city’s permitting averages are not enough satiate the demand of Costa Mesa residents 4 and migrants. The city’s proposed ordinance is regulation over contracts ; the ordinance has no impact on the underlying problem of insufficient housing.

Victor Cao
Senior Vice President
California Apartment Association

Chip Ahlswede
Vice President, External Affairs
Apartment Association of Orange County

From: Todd Martin
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: City Council Meeting Tuesday 10/17/23
Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 2:07:08 PM
Dear City Council of Costa Mesa

I’ve lived in Costa Mesa for most of my life (56 years) and have not left because I truly like the location and atmosphere. However, my wife and I are seriously dismayed with the degradation happening now with the cannabis movement. The legalization of cannabis for recreational use has proven to be a big mistake and now our beloved Costa Mesa is proposing to allow a tidal wave of new pot-shops to open up just making the matter worse. There are FAR better ways to create revenue for the city.

I understand that you will be considering the application to open yet another of these unwelcomed shops and in Mesa Verde Plaza. If so, I will likely avoid shopping there in the future. Also, I’ve heard that another 50 or so pot shops are on deck for Costa Mesa as well. Not good!

PLEASE use common sense and put a stop to the intrusion of drug dispensaries in Costa Mesa!

Best regards

Todd Martin
Personal Email: [email protected]
“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it” – Thomas Paine

Costa Mesa City CouncilOctober 17, 2023

Costa Mesa City Council
October 17, 2023