Vacaville residents press council for rules after proposed sober‑living home in Stonegate

Dozens of Stonegate residents urged the Vacaville City Council on Feb. 20 to adopt local regulations for sober‑living and group homes after an investor purchased 491 Stonewood Drive and promoted the property and his business model online.

Speakers at the meeting described a pattern of social‑media marketing, high proposed occupancies and a lack of clear on‑site staffing or oversight. City staff told the council they are reviewing city ordinances, state fair‑housing law and other cities’ rules and will return with discussion items for council consideration.

The issue drew repeated public comment during the meeting’s “business from the floor” portion. Rosette, a Stonegate Neighborhood Association spokesperson, urged a local task force modeled on a Mission Viejo, California, effort and said the neighborhood formed to “advocate for those residing in our neighborhood.” Kevin Kohler, who said he is a 50‑year resident of the subdivision, listed safety concerns about a plan he described as a “level 3 sober living with no paid staff on‑site,” asking whether required permits, fire suppression and other code items had been completed.

Several speakers cited videos and social‑media posts by the property’s owner, identified in public comment as Andrew Lam. Laurie, a Stonegate resident, read excerpts from Mr. Lam’s online materials and told the council the home appeared to have been marketed as a “high profit business” with claims of managing multiple houses and earning large revenues. Jessica Carvalho, a Stonegate resident, said she was concerned that owners, neighbors and the city had not been properly notified before the operation began and described finding online statements from the operator that “it’s just a business, just a business,” language she said came from his video posts.

Commenters pressed two related points: that some operators manage sober‑living homes as profit enterprises with minimal oversight, and that the absence of explicit local rules leaves neighbors unsure what the city can require. Speakers asked the council to consider limits on occupancy, mandatory on‑site staffing, background checks, notice requirements to nearby property owners and other regulations similar to Costa Mesa’s ordinance cited repeatedly in public remarks.

City Manager and staff representatives responded at length to the public concerns. The manager said staff are reviewing the city’s existing ordinances, looking at sample ordinances from other cities including Costa Mesa, researching fair‑housing and disability law implications, and evaluating what the city can and cannot do under state and federal law. The manager said staff would aim to present council discussion items once research is complete and urged continued community input.

Council members acknowledged the strength of public concern and the complexity of the legal and regulatory landscape. No ordinance or formal council action was taken that evening; staff said they would return with options for council direction.

Public speakers and council members referenced past court rulings and practices from other California cities during the discussion, including a December 2024 Ninth Circuit decision referenced by speakers as permitting Costa Mesa to enforce certain sober‑living regulations after litigation. Commenters said Costa Mesa rules include occupancy limits (six or fewer residents for some classifications), mandatory on‑site managers, notice to property owners within 500 feet, and other permit conditions, and asked the city to analyze whether similar rules could be adopted in Vacaville.

The council did not set a date for follow‑up action that night but staff said they would notify the public as the research and any draft proposals are developed.