Costa Mesa council grants 180‑day extension to expired cannabis permit for 1687 Orange Avenue

The Costa Mesa City Council on Tuesday narrowly voted to overrule the planning commission and give an applicant 180 additional days to vest a conditional use permit (CUP) for a proposed cannabis retail storefront at 1687 Orange Avenue.

Planning staff, represented by Veronica Donovan, said the CUP had been approved by the planning commission on Sept. 12, 2022, and was set to expire Sept. 19, 2024, because the applicant had not completed one of the code’s vesting actions — for example, obtaining a building permit or a business license — within the 24‑month period required by Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Donovan told the council the city requested a final, clean set of plans in May and July 2024 but never received them, and no formal time extension request was filed before the expiration date.

Appellants and project team members described a sequence of construction and utility obstacles and personal tragedy that they said prevented the final paperwork from being submitted. Contractor Ray Dormain said opening the building revealed asbestos and structural problems tied to the site’s long history as a dry cleaner and older, uneven mechanical and electrical systems. “When we opened up the project, it had a lot of contaminants in there,” Dormain said, and later added that Southern California Edison required electrical changes with long lead times. He said the team had been “gung ho” and had a superintendent in place but missed the expiration while the owner experienced a family death.

Project representative Dan Thompson and others said the team has since secured revised designs and financing and that significant amounts already have been spent on plans and remediation. “We had a superintendent in place. I had just hired a new project manager to oversee it, and everybody was gung ho to go forward,” Dormain told the council.

Council members debated how strictly to apply the code’s expiration rule and whether exceptional circumstances justified an extension. Supporters of the extension said the developer had demonstrated progress and that staff commonly grants administrative extensions when applicants are working in good faith; opponents said the code exists to prevent stale approvals and ensure applicants remain organized and able to meet regulatory deadlines.

Mayor John B. Stevens made the motion to overturn the planning commission’s decision and grant a 180‑day extension; Councilmember Lauren Gumeros seconded. The motion passed 4–3. Councilmembers Jeff Pedis, Andrea Marr and Arliss Reynolds voted no.

Council’s vote clears the way for the applicant to pursue the remaining permits and inspections required to vest the entitlement. Developers and contractors said they would resume final plan revisions, coordinate remaining utility work including electrical and water service issues, and then seek building permits and other required approvals within the extension window.

The council’s decision was limited to the narrow question of whether the CUP had expired under Costa Mesa Municipal Code and whether to grant the discrete extension; it did not approve any construction work or change the conditions of approval. Planning staff said any subsequent permit review would follow standard building and safety procedures and could require code updates or plan changes if needed.

What’s next: The extension gives the applicant 180 days to secure permits or request an administrative time extension if needed; if they fail to vest the CUP within that window the municipal code’s expiration would again apply and the entitlement would lapse.