Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, everyone. I would like to call the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order. Today's date is July 2nd, 2025. The time is 6.03 p.m. Roll call, please.

Chair Hamade.

Present.

Vice Chair Bowie. Commissioner Anderson.

Here.

Commissioner Tran.

Here.

Commissioner Wolbert.

Here.

Chair, you have a quorum.

We'll go to the salute of the flag. Please join me in saluting our flag. Ready, begin. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Any communication items?

No, we do not.

None. Okay. We go to number four.

That'll come up during the hearing. Okay.

We go to number four, ex parte communication. Anybody have anything to say?

Yes, Chair. I did visit the property, which is a subject of item 8.1 on our agenda this evening. Okay. Anyone else?

We go to number five. We have none. No special presentation. We'll go to number six, oral communication. This is the time of the meeting that members of the public may address the Planning Commission on matters of public interest which pertain to the City and are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Members of the public wishing to address public hearing items shall do so at the time of the public hearing, unless extended by a majority vote of the Planning Commission. Comments shall be limited to three minutes per speaker. to address the planning commission please complete a blue request to speak form that is provided at the entrance to the city to the council chambers and submit the form to the planning commission clerk when your name is called please step to the podium at the time and state your name and city of residence for the record. Okay, would you please read that? Sure.

Hello, I'd like to submit the following written comment for inclusion in the next Planning Commission meeting. Members of the Commission, my name is Charlotte and I'm a resident of Westminster. I'm writing to you as a homeowner in a single family neighborhood that has recently had an explosion of ADUs going in. I'm actually all for the addition of more housing in that in our community I know we need it however there doesn't seem to be any requirements for 80 use that they provide off street parking and this is causing a real problem many in my neighborhood already Park on their driveways as they have piled their garages with other items. and grown kids that are living there or parents are parking on the street. Now, with the addition of ADUs with no additional parking, these new tenants are parking on the street. It's getting to the point that any guests that want to visit are having a hard time finding parking near my home, which was never a problem before. I would like to urge the Planning Commission to relay these concerns to the state lawmakers that have been putting together the rules regarding ADUs for future consideration. I would like the rules for ADUs to require off-street parking commiserate with the number of bedrooms in proposed ADUs. Thank you. Charlotte Riffey.

Anyone want to speak on oral communication? Do we have any speakers?

We have Terry Raines.

Hello, item 7, I sent an email with one remaining correction to the minutes likely caused by copying and pasting without a full review. The vote tallies were corrected. Initially, they were expressed incorrectly. Never received a response to the issue of Commissioner Hamadi recusing himself believing that he lived within 500 feet of the proposed indoor pickleball site at the April 2nd meeting when all radius maps reflect that his house is not within 500 feet of that site. Again, if a commissioner really needs to recuse themselves, they must leave before the item is presented, discussed, and voted on. Hamadi didn't recuse until after staff's presentation. You should all be aware that the glowing report Principal Planner Fickleman, I never say your name right, gave to the commission regarding Lavender Hall on Beach was not accurate. Evidence has been provided to PD and ABC regarding the ongoing violations at the site, and they are well aware of it. Furthermore, the business applied for, and this commission wrongly approved, a Type 47 liquor license, and in order to get that, a full kitchen has to be built which you also approved. I don't believe that project has been completed and in fact the permit may have already expired. Did staff grant an extension? If so on what basis? I still can't believe this commission approved their liquor license upgrade even knowing the serious violations and temporary license suspension that occurred plus the many ongoing CEP violations yet you didn't approve the type 20 to 21 two of them upgrades that had none of those issues. Thankfully the city council overrode your decision on those two but only after adding a condition that could easily be challenged under state law. I am compelled to make staff and this commission aware of something that transpired on Tuesday, June 24th. Your Vice Chair, Tony Bui, appeared on a Vietnamese language YouTube channel, AVA, on a program called 60 Minutes Spotlight, hosted by Chris Pham, along with Garden Grove's Mayor Pro Tem, Joe Devin. I am in the process of producing a full transcript, roughly translated into English. The gist of this program? To disparage and downright attack Westminster city staff and leadership, especially in the area of planning. No facts, just an all-out attack that at times bordered on slander. Joe Devin was wearing his official Garden Grove branded jacket and both identified in their official positions throughout the program. Neither reported the many positive changes that have been made to the planning, building, and code enforcement divisions this year. Your vice chair claimed city employees are sluggish, lazy, inefficient, and are just passing the time to get a paycheck. Joe Devin even went further with statements such as, quote, we criticize Westminster staff from the city manager down, end quote. The leadership of Westminster staff is too weak, including the city manager, Ms. Christine Corden, and I want to fire her. Fire her straight away and call it a vote of no confidence. And you wonder why developers are hesitant to come to our city when our own city officials should not be out in the media going after our own city staff and leadership. There must be consequences for these egregious actions. And trust me, there's more to come on this matter. Thank you.

Any other speakers?

We do not have any.

Okay, we're going to close the oral communication. We're going to go next to the approval of minutes.

Before you approve the minutes, we would recommend that we pull the item. We need to read a correction into the record.

Okay.

You just need to read the correction.

I gave it to you. I don't have the correction.

Okay, so in the minutes for case 24-0220. it should say that a motion was made by vice chair anderson seconded by chair wolbert to deny case number 2024-0220 not 0176 we'd request them the minute to be approved with that modification i'd move approval with that correction i second roll call

We have a motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Chair Hamade, to approve the minutes of the April 2, 2025 regular meeting. Commissioner Wolbert?

Yes.

Commissioner Anderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Tran?

Yes.

Chair Hamade?

Yes. We're going to move to the public hearing.

Motion carries 4-0. Thank you.

Anyone wishing to speak on an open public hearing should complete a blue request to speak form that is provided at the entrance of the council chambers and submit the form to the planning commission clerk. When your name is called, please step to the podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. Each attendee will have three minutes to comment on each public hearing item. The applicant or their designee will have 12 minutes to speak and will also be provided a three-minute rebuttal. With the exception of the applicant or designee, all attendees may only speak once. The Planning Commission may use its discretion to allow a speaker to exceed the allowed time or may ask a speaker to return to answer additional questions. We will go to item 8.1 case number 2024-0160.

Thank you chair and commissioners Ken fichtelman principal planner. We are here tonight to discuss case 2024-0160 that is a request for development review and So the site is on golden west circle just north of the 405 it is a two hundred and thirty two thousand two hundred and one square foot lot that is currently developed with a warehouse with trucking bays The applicant is proposing to build one hundred one hundred and fifteen thousand square feet it's going to be a combination warehouse office and showroom for a cabinet supply company. They are looking to provide 132 parking stalls per the code they need one for every thousand feet of building with a warehouse so they need to provide 116 so they are exceeding the amount of parking required by 16 parking spots. With the exception of building height the project complies with all other applicable development standards including zoning requirements and orange county fire authority. The site will have eight trucking bays on the front of the property. There is shared ingress through there. This diagram basically just shows you that the trucks will be able to maneuver into place. But we like it because it clearly shows the eight trucking bays there. The floor plan, it has just under 9,000 square feet of office space. The picture on the right shows the first floor office space. It's a mix of offices, sales cubicles, and showroom space for the cabinets. And that showroom space is included in the warehousing total. Overall, there's 106,220 square feet of warehouse space laid out as seen. That's mostly racking for the various products that they will stock on site. No production will be done at this facility. It is strictly a warehousing and sales facility. These are renderings of the north view, which you would see coming into the circle. and the Westview. We've worked with the applicant to get a design that meets all the design standards we have for industrial buildings and that we feel kind of adds something of interest for the site. They've added spandrel glass and some elements to break up the massing that normally comes with the warehouse. And we believe that the applicant has really has done a good job of making this look like more than just a standard warehouse building. With the project the applicant is asking for a variance for height so variance is something that a property owner can ask for when they have unusual conditions on their lot to prevent them from gaining what other property owners in the nearby area in the same zone have. In this case the applicant is asking for a height variance. up to 44 feet, that is nine feet more than allowed in industrial zone. The reason for the variance is that the 405 freeway through there is a raised freeway, depending on if you're on the east or the west property line, it goes from a height of about 18 feet or 20 feet down to about 10 feet. And on top of that, Caltrans has put in approximately 10 foot sound wall. But if you see the image on the screen, what that means is if you're driving down the freeway, that building has absolutely no presence from the freeway. They're asking for the height variance to go up to 44 feet so that the building will gain some visibility from the freeway and their signs will be visible from the freeway, something that every other building along that freeway corridor currently enjoys. Mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for the project and counts are the Commission will also be asked to approve that with this project with the mitigated negative declaration all possible environmental impacts have been lessened to a degree of less than significant and with that we recommend that the planning commission adopt resolution 25-012 approving case 2024-0160. I' m here to answer any questions you may have and the applicant is also here.

Any questions for the staff? Yes I do thank you. Ken we have a letter here from a law firm regarding the mitigated negative declaration and their opinion that it should be a environmental impact report. So what's your take on that?

Lose Out Jewelry is a known firm that attacks any environmental report. Funny enough, they never get past the stage. They never go to appeal. We believe that the mitigated negative declaration was warranted. If it wasn't for the variance, this project would not even need a full environmental. It would qualify for an exemption. It is only because of the variance that we had to move forward with the MND. We use the firm that we've used in the past. We have no issues with his work and would stand by the report that he has prepared.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?

I do. There's a building next to it. It's the 15192. How tall is that building?

I'm not exactly sure. We'd have to look.

It's called the Lingvang.

Okay, I would have to go out and measure. I mean, most of the buildings through there are flatter warehouses, maxing at about 20, 25 feet.

Okay, maxes there.

But the sound wall is a newer addition and didn't exist prior to a few years ago. Yeah. So the situation that's been created is fairly recent.

Okay, thank you.

Any more questions? Okay, we're going to open the public hearing now. Anyone wish to speak, please come to the front. State your name.

Good evening, gentlemen, from the Planning Commission. My name is John Cataldo. I am the architect for the project. And the applicant, Francisco Concheros, he works for me. And I'd like to take... By the way, my address is 835 Mission Street in South Pasadena. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Ken Fickleman He's done an excellent job and I'm really proud to see that There's been a change in the type of response that we have several projects in the city. And I have to say, Ken is a breath of fresh air. And I thank you very much. Thank you very much for your service. We have reviewed the conditions. We agree with the conditions of approval. There is a very minor request and it may be just a question. We know we have a two year period to accomplish this. What has happened to us in the past is because of the lengthy amount of times to get the construction documents done and construction documents approved through the various agencies that process alone takes over a year sometimes so we were wondering if at all possible to we're not sure how many extension that would be allowed in the two years but if there's one or two extensions can we make it three or perhaps rather than two years can you make it three years says it's humble request If you don't want to deviate from that, understood. But the reason we're asking for it is because the lengthy amount of time. We have to get around 17 different agencies to agree to this. That takes a lot of work, a lot of drawings, and time. So it's a humble request. Otherwise, thank you very much, and I appreciate our ability to be able to do this in the city. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Yeah, I do have a question. Okay. Sir? I just had a question for you. So the loading docks are in the front of the building, but the way the building is oriented and the way Golden West Circle comes around, when people are driving on Golden West Circle, the loading docks will be – they won't be visible? Is that your understanding or your design? Yes.

that is correct commissioner Anderson that was intentional that was we clearly were very aware of that condition and we were also very aware of the condition of the exposure to the freeway and from the street we want this to be a how do I put it a excellent building to be able to actually advertise their product, which emphasizes the quality of what they're providing, as well as something that's an unusual building and also something that the city can be proud of.

Okay, thank you. Is the owner with you here today?

I'm sorry?

Is the owner with you today?

The owner is right here.

Would you like to say anything?

Can you come on up?

I have one question.

Just one question since we still have some of your time left. Out of curiosity is this going to be open for public That was my question.

My name is Tin Fan, representing the company. We're based in Fountain Valley as of now. And originally, we originated from the city of Westminster. So we moved to Fountain Valley, and we wish to come back, come home. This, like John said, that it's a pride for us and a pride for the city if we can make it a really modern professional building. And we dedicated so much time for it. It's been like, what John?

Two years.

Two years, but then when we originally applied for this one, it's since 2019. Can you believe it's since 2019 that we went through several... We had been through a different architect. It didn't go through. We had to rely on John afterwards. So it's been, what, six years already. Yeah, so... We are a manufacturer overseas, and we do have production and manufacturing in Fountain Valley as well. If you know, you drive by the freeway, it's 405 Cameron and Stone right across the city of... Is it the water tower? Next to Fry's, the old Fry's. Yeah, it's 405 Cameron and Stone. If you drive by the 405, you've seen us for 20 years there already. Yeah, so... We do both wholesale and retail. So this building, we want to mix both of them, yeah.

Okay, quick question here. So most of the scope of the work is going to be not visible to the public in the front or will it be visible?

You mean from the street? Like from the front on Golden West. Actually, it's right facing Golden West Circle, so it's way away from the Golden West, the main street. But you're also on Gardner Grove Boulevard, right?

the The layout the way we positioned the building is that from Golden West what you see is the office and showroom so the actual warehouse is behind it so will be the the back will be on garden room over in that neighborhood in that area, right and No, Garden Grove Boulevard is not, is not, perhaps you may want to.

Yeah, if I may, Garden Grove Boulevard runs to the, is well to the north. This is totally on Golden West Circle. It backs up to the 405.

Okay, yeah. It's right next adjacent to the 405 freeway. A few buildings away from the post office. I mixed it up with something else.

Okay, I don't know. Yeah. I mixed it with a different building, okay?

thank you. Do you have any further questions? I have one last comment. With regards to the letter we received I am in complete agreement with ken and I have spoken to several labor attorneys today regarding the matter. There' s no basis for the letter this is not a public project and I' m in total that you follow that.

any more questions? thank you very much. do we have any speaker on the item?

just to state into record we did receive the written communication and copies were placed on the

I just hope you can take my request regarding the extensions or the time frame. If you could maybe question that or make a decision on that. Thank you.

Sure. A quick question here. How many extensions are they allowed to have?

I would just request we amend the condition. Our standard condition is a year. This one has been raised to two.

But can they always come back?

We would rather them not come back or have to file extensions if he's telling us up front that it is going to take us at least a year, year and a half just to get construction documents completed. more prudent Avenue and so we don't have to bring this back to Commission would just be to extend the Approval period for three years have it expire three years after this the date of approval That's totally within your right and something we often do for larger projects.

Okay Thank you We have Terry Raines

Hello, Terry Raines. I support this project which will help modernize our M2 industrial zone. The commission should approve the requested height variance. Staff clearly explained why the variance should be granted. The applicant needs the variance due to the freeway and ground structure and without it the applicant would not have the same visibility to freeway drivers as the other businesses along the 405 corridor. When I entered both parcel numbers into various GIS parcel map programs, both parcel numbers resulted in the identical parcel outline. The staff report states, quote, the project site located at 15172 Golden West Circle is comprised of a single parcel, which is bounded by Interstate 405 to the south into zoned and developed properties to the north and west, and a public facility zoned parcel to the east that has been developed with a self-storage facility, which does not indicate which does not indicate a total overlay of two separate parcel numbers. So provided below for you is an illustration of one of those such programs and there are other staff please explain why both numbers result in the same parcel outline on the maps. And while you're at it, please explain to the commissioners, especially those who are new, what exactly a mitigated negative declaration is, and cover the noted impacts expected to have substantial impact for this project, and then explain how each is being mitigated down to a less than significant impact if staff's presentation did not do so, which it did not. Yes, it's explained in the 320-page staff report, but commissioners deserve an executive summary presentation, in my opinion. As I stated in my opening comment, I support this project and I recommend that the Commission approve it as presented. I have provided copies of these comments to you for your reference. Thank you.

Any other speakers?

No, we do not.

Okay. Any questions for the staff?

I have a question for staff. under the item 8.2 which is sort of related because it's industrial zoning this is zoned M2 correct? Okay under the table that you have at 8.2 furniture sales finished or unfinished are not prohibited in M2 zones this is a retail furniture sales correct?

Any more questions? None? Okay, we're going to close the public hearing. Okay, discussion?

I have one other question for staff. Are you looking for us to approve both resolutions at the same time? You only mentioned resolution 25012 and not 25013 for approval.

Yes, that is our mistake. Both resolutions can be approved as one motion. We just have to put the MND under a separate resolution number. That is my mistake, and I apologize.

I' m very pleased to see this project come forward and Thank the applicant the architect and all the people that worked on this can and staff Who helped put this together? This is something that the city desperately needs is quality development and this will be a very visible quality development and so I'm very pleased that this is a we have an applicant who's in got confidence in the city's willing to invest in the city and hopefully it will bring others in to do the same and And I would be very comfortable in giving a three-year opportunity for them to get everything taken care of. I don't have a problem there. And as far as the mitigated negative declaration goes, we have had an opportunity. The commissioners have had an opportunity to review it. I think it's pretty straightforward. And I'm comfortable with what we've received and had an opportunity to review. I would make a motion to approve as recommended unless unless there's further discussion or questions From other commissioners what points in the resolution?

1201 or 2501 to where does it state two years specifically?

It's one of the first few conditions it is I Condition number six. It says the approval shall expire two years from the date of approval. That's what I was looking for.

I think it's a beautiful building. I agree with Mr. Anderson. And I'm going to second the motion. With the three years, exactly. The way he spoke about it.

We have a motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Chair Hamadi, to approve case number 2024-0160, a conditional use permit to approve case number m 2 zone and the associated mitigated negative declaration through the adoption of resolution 2 5 dash 0 1 2 and resolution 2 5 0 1 through 3 subject to the Commissioner Wolbert?

So just for the record, it would be changing item number six in the resolution 25012 to extend it to three years, and I vote yes.

Commissioner Anderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Tran?

Yes.

Chair Hamadi?

Yes.

Motion carries 4-0.

Thank you. We go to number 8.2. Welcome back. Take care.

Okay, the commission's action on this item shall be become effective 15 days after the decision date identified in a notice of decision. The applicant and or any other interested party may file an appeal of this commission's action to the city council. The appeal must be in writing and filed with the city clerk within the previously mentioned 15-day period.

we will go to item 8.2. Case number 2024-0113 zoning code amendment.

thank you chair and commissioners again principal planner we will keep this one brief because we do not believe the changes are that substantial here. This is case 2025-0113 request to amend section 17.230 industrial zoning After reviewing the code and going over certain code issues with city management, staff has found a number of code uses that should either be added for clarification or removed from the table. This zoning code amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission on May 7, 2025. So section 17.230.010 shows all of the permitted and conditional uses in industrial zone. Going through it, staff was looking to clarify uses, which we've had inquiries on, which could be allowed through other uses, but we wanted to make it explicitly clear that these uses were allowed, and also to remove uses that we did not think were in the best interest of the city. An example of this, we added breweries, wineries, distilleries with tasting rooms. Those already could be allowed. We allow for food production, which we're also clarifying means beverages through this code update. We allow for alcohol sales off-site and on-site, and we allow for restaurants. we are trying to make it very clear to people who are just looking at our code that certain uses are allowed. That is one we look to show because those are usually good uses for the city and bring in people who are more willing to spend money nearby. We also removed a few retail uses. We had full restaurants which could be allowed in the industrial zone. There's no need for a full 40-seat restaurant with table service in an industrial area. There were a few retail uses that we removed. We've got vacant retail parcels in other commercial zones in the city. We saw no reason to take up valuable industrial space in the city with those retail uses. And for the last two that we removed, Westminster is industrial limited. We have a limited number of industrial parcels. We have no way to create more. I mean, once you lose industrial space in a city, it is very hard to get back. So with that, staff was looking to really protect industrial uses for uses that bring in employment, that bring in tax revenue, that increase property value. And with that, we looked at removing self-storage facilities completely RV storage from the M1 or I'm sorry from the M2 zone. RV storage produces no revenue pretty much for the city. Any rental of space is not a taxable, you can't tax rental. So we are getting no tax revenue from these businesses. At the same time, they're not building structures, so we're not getting any kind of property tax increase in value other than what the land is worth at its base value. They also do not need, they don't need employees. both self-storage and RV rental facilities may have two or three employees max. What we're trying to do is protect that space that could be used for something like the project you just see, which will employ 100 people possibly, and will bring in tax revenue, and because it's an improved building, will increase property tax revenue. we had to move it to the west minister. With that we removed self-storage entirely from the code it was a permitted by right we removed it from the code we' ve already got five self-storage places there' s a few more across huntington we didn' t see the need for more. We removed the rv storage from m2 we did leave it in m1 because we do recognize there are people who have boats rvs who may need storage but at the same time we don' t want to let it proliferate over all of our The proposed zoning code amendment is not a project per sequa. It's not going to cause any direct physical change in the environment And with that We recommend that the Planning Commission approve case 2025-0 1 1 3 to the City Council through the adoption of resolution 25-0 1 4 and I'm here for any questions

At this time, I would like to open the public hearing. Anyone who wishes to speak, please come to the podium. Do you have any speaker?

Terry Links.

Before I speak, can you get a copy that I distributed of these comments to Ken, please, and the city attorney? Now, but throw in one or... I know, can we get one to Ken? Do you have one? I'm asking. Thank you. Oh, here we go. And maybe the city attorney as well. The city attorney as well, please.

Thanks.

Okay. Hello, Terry Raines. Suggestions for this table of permitted uses and other similar tables within the zoning code include, number one, instead of using just a dash for uses not allowed or not permitted, use N-A for not allowed, not applicable, or the more widely used N-P for not permitted. A dash is not clear. Place the legend, number two, place the legend at the top of the chart, not the bottom. Three, add a second legend also at the beginning with full description of what each zone in the table is. and it would be helpful for staff to have included a map of the city's current zoning so commissioners and the public could visualize where in the city each of these zones are located throughout the city. Questions as to the amended permitted uses in the table include, one, self-storage facilities were removed from all three zones in the table, but not just M1 and M2 as the staff report Burbage states. Is that an error, Ken? Will they still be allowed in the city elsewhere, or are they banned altogether due to the negligible benefit to the city? Two, why are RV storage facilities allowed in M1 but M2? He kind of explained. Number three, why are religious places of worship, aka churches and temples, allowed in these zones? Is that mandated by state law? Or four, why aren't emergency shelters permitted in M1 and M2 where most cities place them? Emergency shelters must be allowed by right per state law under government code 65583. Yes, we partner with Garden Grove and Fountain Valley for a navigation center, but there may be a need for emergency shelter here in the future. Five, why are mobile home parks allowed in M1 and M2? Shouldn't they only be allowed in residential or mixed use zones or even in a designated MHP zone? yet mobile home sales are not allowed in M1 and M2. Six, why is senior housing allowed in M1 and M2? Shouldn't it only be allowed in residential or mixed-use zones? Is this a state law mandate or question mark? Seven, why remove grocery, liquor, general retail, and specialty stores from M1 and M2 but not convenience stores? The staff report verbiage states convenience stores are being removed, but the table does not reflect that. Is that an error, Ken? Also, please define a specialty store. If cannabis shops come here, would they be designated as specialty stores? If so, most cities prefer those to be in industrial zones versus commercial, although that viewpoint is now slowly evolving. Seven, shouldn't dry cleaning with on-site cleaning and all those chemicals be allowed in M1 and M2? And eight, why is towing or no storage allowed in M2, but tow yard no storage is not? Please explain the difference. Is one basically a junkyard? Again, these are not just the changes that I'm addressing. I'm addressing overall the table and my questions related to that. And I have provided copies of these comments to each of you for reference. And if you have any questions, great. Thank you.

There's no more speakers, right?

No more speakers.

Okay.

Okay. Commissioner? I just have one comment. I'm just sad Tony's not here to get written statements from Terry Raines.

Okay.

Okay.

Can we close? Is the public hearing closed?

No, he wants to talk. That's it? That's your comment? Okay. Well, I have a question for the staff. I would like to bring this item back, if we can, with the map of all the zoning, as Terry mentioned. I would like to see that.

The reason we're moving this forward quickly is because we have had hard inquiries on sites for self-storage facilities. But see, right now we're going to vote blindly. And I understand, but we are trying to get this through because right now it's a permitted use. They don't need any permission from anybody. They can just do it by right. So I'm just letting you know we can bring it back. But the reason we're trying to get this through quickly is because we're trying to prevent some of those hard inquiries. from becoming full submittals, in which case the city and the commission will have no recourse to remove those. That's why we didn't do, it's part of what Terry's doing. When Terry looked at this, she looked at the whole code. We just looked at quick fixes that wouldn't invoke CEQA.

With all due respect, I cannot vote on something I can't see. I mean, the next meeting is only two weeks from now, so it's not going to be that long. You can bring it on the next meeting if you like.

Chair, can I make a motion? I'd like to make a motion for approval of Case 2025-0113 for Resolution 25014. To approve it?

Mm-hmm.

Any second to it?

I have some questions before we take a vote on it. Now, the map that Terry's referring to, City map shows all the zoning commercial m1 m2 c1 c2 all that so we could be able to wear to see what we're voting on Okay, yeah, well, I don't really see a need for a zoning map I think what we're talking about here is uses within the zones and so staffs had an opportunity to review the various uses and they can has explained the intent of trying to I think really improve the city and and streamline the process. So I don't have a problem with that. But I think there are some points made. And Ken, you've looked at Terry's one-page information sheet here. Do you see anything there that you would want to include?

I can speak to all these points let's go to religious places of worship we're not touching that that's kind of the third rail that was beyond the scope of what we were looking to do okay emergency shelters again we do permit those and I believe it's the c2 zone I'd have to look to make sure because that was a condition of our housing element to make sure those were allowed We are not adding anything that may trigger CEQA at this time because CEQA would have added six months to this process. So everything we've done, there were more uses that we wanted to include as permitted uses, but they would have triggered at least an MND and possibly a full EIR. That sets us back at least six months, possibly a year. The purpose of this was to move quickly because we are trying to hold off, or we're not trying to hold off, we're trying to prevent some of these uses that we believe are negative impacts on the city from being able to come in. Mobile home parks and senior housing, those are already allowed. There are state housing laws that prevent us from removing them straight out. So rather than get involved in that process and going back and forth to make sure we could, we left them alone. We also don't want to make anything non-conforming at this point with respect to housing. So it's another reason we didn't touch housing. convenience stores should have been removed that was a mistake we kind of went back and forth on that for a long time and it got added to the staff report we did think convenience stores have some benefit in an industrial zone because you do have workers who may want to run out and grab something to drink grab you know nachos coffee in the morning very quickly so i apologize we went back and forth and that was kind of a last minute switch um you know we can it's permitted in the table now if you want to leave it like that if you wish us to remove it from the table staff was ambivalent it's you know so.

Well what I guess my thought would be you can review this and see what you think would improve what you presented to us and then without saying anything particular but there do seem to be some clear points here that could improve

what you're suggesting like the NP rather than a dash to that so something as simple as that is it well and those are not things we're looking to correct because we want consistency in the code every other development portion of our code that lists uses is laid out exactly the same okay We are looking to redo... We are in the process of redoing the entire code. That may be something... We are addressing the use tables because as part of the broader update we're doing, we are getting rid of the individual use tables and we're going to a single master use table. So we can address formatting for consistency at that time.

Okay, well, that's fine. But if there's something of value in what you think clearly would help the process in what Terry has presented, do you see some things here that would be easy to include and would improve what you're presenting?

I don't believe so. I mean, there's nothing here that would be easy to add. Dry cleaning, we just didn't. That's a commercial use. Again, that's something where people are coming back and forth. That's not the kind of use you want in an industrial area. You want to push that to commercial areas so they can take care of other activities at the same time. The towing no storage, it was a duplicate in the code. So it was addressed twice in the code. We just removed it once. And with the housing, that invokes a lot of state laws that would take time. And like I said, we were trying to get this done prudently but quickly because we do want to make sure that some of these projects that we're looking at, we want the commission to consider that, do we want those in the city?

Okay. Okay.

okay well that's fine so you've gone through this and at this point you feel this is this is the best direction to head what you presented obviously because you're presenting it to us and and there's nothing we i appreciate what terry has done to analyze this but if you feel that what you presented is going to accomplish what you set out to do i'm comfortable with that and that's the case and that is at this point okay then i would second casey's motion to approve okay submitted by staff roll call please

We have a motion by Commissioner Wolbert, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of Case 2025-0113 to the City Council through the adoption of Resolution 25-014. Commissioner Wolbert?

Yes.

Commissioner Anderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Tran?

Yes.

Chair Hamade?

Yes.

Motion carries 4-0.

Thank you.

So the commission's action on this item shall be heard by the planning committee or by the city council at a future date. And there is no appeal at this time until the council's decision is heard. Okay.

Clarify, are we hearing the news or not?

They proved it as is, so it'll stay in for now.

Well, as is on the table.

Yes, as is in the room. Venous stores are allowed, but liquor stores aren't.

That seems... You've got to read the bottom? It's very short, very fast.

Read it a different way.

Read it a different way. Okay, regular business, we have none. Reports? any reports? nothing?

no we do not.

a matter from staff?

just a few items from the last council meeting the council did overturn the commission's decision on the two liquor licenses were heard but they actually the way they approved it was very similar to what you had originally proposed, Casey, where they gave them the ability to sell singles at a higher alcohol content, but they took away their ability to sell bottles of liquor, basically. So they're not allowed to sell anything that's over 25% alcohol, which is, I mean, you can't sell any of your true spirits. You can't sell rum, you can't sell vodka, you can't sell gin. I suggest you watch the meeting, because I gave a very, very detailed explanation of liquor at that meeting. So your decision was overturned, but it was actually not completely because they did go along with what you had said originally, singles for the bottles. So we will be working with PD in the future to incorporate what the council asked for for the conditions as our standard conditions going forward.

Did they keep the security also?

They kept everything. They only... We only brought back the exact conditions you saw originally. They amended three of them.

So everything else stayed.

Staff did approve, the council did approve The code text amendment for expiration of projects. So the commission had recommended approval. City Council affirmed that decision. They did, however, overturn your decision on staff initiation. Staff will be able to initiate code text amendments going forward. The commission and council will still hear those at public hearings. Okay. And that is all staff has.

Okay. We go to number 12, matters from the Planning Commission, including AB 1234, reports when required. Chair Grobel.

I got one. I think Don might have the same one. I would love to get an update from Code Enforcement on this lavender situation, if possible. Can we bring those folks in maybe at the next one or two meetings, whenever that next meeting would be? I would love to get an update on what's going on with their conditional use permit, if they've built a kitchen, where that... we can look at that and see how many violations they' ve had since then and possibly bring that c u p back for review.

we can look into bringing the We do know that when I gave the report that Lavender, that was through, I don't go out and check, that was through information from code enforcement and PD. So if things have changed, they've just changed since I last spoke to code and PD. Yeah, and I will also check with building, because code won't know where they are on the permit process for the kitchen, building would. Last I heard, they were still dealing with county health. I don't know if that's been resolved. But I will work with Sergio Varenva, who is our code enforcement manager, to give you an update.

Anyone else? Yes and I concur with Casey on that because this has been going on for some time and probably over a year and I recall when we considered this that I was concerned that the applicant was indicating a substantial investment in the kitchen, which just seemed to me they were doing it in an effort to make it look like they were going to be having something really terrific in the way of a kitchen and way beyond what you would normally see. And so, Ken, I would appreciate if you could get the the report the plans that were considered by the commission and discuss those with building and code enforcement so they can take a look and see how close they match or do they match or they don't match and where they don't and let them let code enforcement and any other staff that you think appropriate come to the commission and make a presentation let us know what's happening enforcement wise as well as the commission approves the building. How close does it comply with what the commission approved that could be helpful?

the plans that were submitted for building were the plans that the commission approved they just had the extra building items that are needed for So they will be more or less the same, except for additional pages that tell you how things are getting done. I will look into that and get you a report at the next meeting. For the code updates, I will try to see if I can get our code enforcement manager to come in. That may be a little trickier. I'll have to find out because he is a contract employee. And sometimes getting him over hours gets funny. So we'll see what we can do with that. But we will get somebody here who can speak to Lavender.

Okay, and then I had a comment too on the the resident who sent a letter in on the oral communications regarding the accessory dwelling units and I agree with what she said a hundred percent This was a huge mistake on the part of our state legislators To allow these units with no parking if they had said you can have units but you have to have some type of parking and that would have been meeting its i think half that would have been halfway reasonable but to allow these units to come in with no additional parking uh... makes absolutely no sense i'm seeing the effect in my neighborhood obviously she's seeing it in her neighborhood and i think this is going to be a decision that the state legislators made that's going to have some real detrimental effects on communities throughout california and it's going to just get nothing but worse so hopefully When the state legislators consider such items before they jump into it. It'd be real nice if they contacted local government and Ask what are the effects of this proposal, and do you think this is something that's going to be beneficial to everybody? so we at this point I sympathize with that homeowner I wish there was something the Planning Commission could do I would suggest that we residents that have concerns contact their state legislators They probably won't undo what we're dealing with in the way of the ad use But it may get the state legislators to think twice before they implement something like this without getting input from those that are affected That's all I've got. Oh one more item. I would like to say I'm sorry This is in regards to the to the compliments given by the architect to can and staff and This is something that's really critical if a city has a reputation of being responsive and reasonable It will attract quality development so can thank you for your efforts in this line I've been really pleased in your responses at the Planning Commission meetings when we have questions what you're presenting I Think you're doing a great job I know you've got a lot of planners working with you, and they're part of the team, too, and that's great. So I certainly support what planning is all about and what planning's doing. I was involved in working with the city as community development director for 13 years, so I was familiar with planning, and there's a lot of criticism from time to time that planning receives, and 99.9% is unjust. Planning's not perfect. Nobody is. the city has a lot of work to do. The planners have a tremendous case load they have a lot of regulations they have to keep track of and follow. It' s easy to criticize but once people understand what' s involved they appreciate what' s being done. Thanks to you and the other planners and keep up the good work.

I want to second what don said thank you very much for tonight it was great work by the Okay.

We adjourn at 6.59 p.m. Next meeting will be on Wednesday, August 6th, 6 p.m. Thank you.