Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I forgot what I was gonna say. you Thank you. you

Good evening. Today's date is September 3, 2025. A regular meeting for the Planning Commission starts at 6 p.m. Please roll call.

Chair Hamadi?

Here.

Vice Chair Bowie?

Here.

Commissioner Anderson? Commissioner Tran?

Here.

Commissioner Wolbert? Chair Hamadi, you have a quorum with Commissioners Anderson and Wolbert absent.

Okay, thank you. Can you please join me in selling our flag? Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. SECRETARY POMPEO- Any report from Planning Commission, Secretary, on late communication items?

MS. Chair, I have nothing to report.

SECRETARY POMPEO- Okay, thanks. Ex-party communication? No? Okay. Special presentation, none. We go to 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 council chambers and submit the form to the Planning Commission clerk. When your name is called, please step to the podium at that time and state your name and city of residence for the record. We're gonna open the public hearing now. Do you have any speakers?

Chair, we have one speaker, Terry Raines.

Hello, item seven, still no minutes presented for the July 2nd and August 6th meetings. As I've mentioned numerous times, the already approved minutes for the April 2nd meeting are still not posted on the city's website. All minutes should be caught up and presented at your next meeting. I have provided you with a verbatim transcript of Vice Chair Bowie's comments at the last meeting about an email he sent to City Manager Christine Corden. It may be difficult to read, but it's exactly what he said and how he said it. I've highlighted the more troubling portions. Quote, the people who did send you on paperwork, that is wrongful. Unquote. It is not wrongful for a member of the public to send concerns in writing about the vice chair of this commission making disparaging remarks about our city staff and leadership on Vietnamese language media. Quote, I have the First Amendment to talk anything as long as it not harm the city of Westminster. Unquote. Fact. Vice Chair Bui, your words and actions are harmful to the city, which is why I brought this to everyone's attention in the first place. Quote, yes. I would like to pass because it's been publicly sent to Christine Cordon, the secretary of the city of Westminster, unquote. Vice Chair Bowie, you calling our city manager Christine Cordon the secretary of the city is grossly insulting and flat out wrong, but that ignorant ignorance goes right along with your and Joe Devin's misguided opinion and slanderous comments about her. You owe everyone a public apology, verbal and written, in English and Vietnamese. Vice Chair Bui, on February 27th, you signed the city's Code of Ethics and Conduct document. Read it, study it, and abide by it. Your words and actions violate the sections A1, A3, A6, B1, B and D, B3, A, D, E, and B4C. As an appointed official, you must also abide by the municipal code section 204130, public official and employee interactions. Read it, study it, and abide by it. Your words and actions violate the sections A, B1, A, B, E, H, J, K, and 2A. Violations to this codified policy are provided for under section C, sanctions. As a reminder, Vice Chair Bowie, The city's municipal code is law and slander is never protected speech. It seems everyone but Tony knows about and applauds the many positive procedural and policy changes that have been made to the community development division this year. I've submitted a public records request for additional correspondence to from or about Vice Chair Bui on this matter. Breaking news, your Vice Chair Tony Bui filed an unlimited civil legal claim against the city and Mayor Nguyen claiming harassment and mental and physical anguish over the mayor confronting Bui about his comments with Joe Devin on Vietnamese media that I reported to you. I provided copies of the claim to you. Mayor Nguyen allegedly threatened to remove Bui from this commission. My question is, why didn't he? Vice Chair Bui, You need to own what you did and the damage it caused and stop blaming others for your bad behavior. More to come. It's pretty bad when the vice chair of the planning commission sues or is taking the first step to sue the city in which they serve. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other speakers?

Chair, we have no more speakers.

Okay, we're going to close the public hearing. We're going to move to number seven, approval of minutes. I move approval. Roll call. Any second?

I second it.

I have a motion made by Chair Hamadi, seconded by Vice Chair Buoy, to approve the regular meeting minutes of April 6, 2025, May 7, 2025, August 20, 2025, and minutes of cancellation for the meetings of January 16, 2025 February 19, 2025, March 19, 2025, May 21, June 4, June 18, 2025, and July 16, 2025. I'll go ahead and call roll. Commissioner Tran?

Here. Yes. Yes, I'm sorry.

Vice Chair Bui?

Yes.

Chair Hamadi?

Yes.

Motion passed.

Go to number eight, public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on an open public hearing should complete a blue request to speak form that is provided at the interest 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 five-minute rebuttal, with the exception of the applicant or attendees may only speak once. The Planning Commission may use its discretion to allow a speaker to exceed the allotted time or may ask a speaker to return to answer additional questions. Move to 8.1, case number 2025-0176. Mr. Kim.

Good evening, Chair Hamadi, Vice Chair Bowie, and Commissioner Tran. My name is Alice. I'm the Associate Planner for the Planning Division. Tonight, I will be presenting case 2025-0176, which is a zoning text amendment to the SB9 code sections that regulate two-unit housing developments in the R1 single-family zone lots. First, I will be providing you with a brief background of the legislative actions of SB 9, followed by just some of the key changes that we're making.

If you don't mind, can we move that screen a little bit so we can be able to see it?

Commissioners, we've also provided you with printouts in case the screen doesn't work.

I prefer to see the screen as we are here already. It's much better than reading. Faster. Just a little bit that way. Straight this way, but just back it up toward you. Much better. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Senate Bill 9 or SB 9 first became law on January 1st of 2022. And this law introduced two new sections to the state's code. One section allows property owners to be able to develop two units on a single family's own lot. THE OTHER CODE SECTION ALLOWS THE PROPERTY OWNER TO BE ABLE TO SPLIT THEIR LOTS INTO TWO AND ALSO BUILD TWO UNITS ON EACH OF THOSE LOTS TO CREATE A TOTAL OF FOUR ON A SINGLE FAMILY'S OWN LOT. AND JUST LIKE ADUS, THE SB 9 UNITS REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF FOUR FOOT SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS. THE CITY ADOPTED AN URGENCY ORDINANCE ON JANUARY 12TH OF 2022 TO IMPLEMENT THE NEW STATE LAW. So subsequently, since then, towards the end of last year, the Senate passed Bill SB450, which is the legislative update to SB9, and that became effective January 1st of 2025. So the city needs a zoning text amendment to bring the city's SB9 code sections into full compliance with state law. On February 5th, the Planning Commission initiated a zoning text amendment for this code update. So now I'm going to highlight just go over one of the key changes that we're making and this pertains to the number of units and how many ADUs and JADUs are allowed. And this change is not because of the new state legislative update that just came out this year. But it's to be consistent with state law that was originally introduced in 2022. When the city first adopted the urgency ordinance, we took the position that only the JADUs and ADUs, that we do not need to require JADUs and ADUs, and that we can only allow a maximum of two units. However, subsequently, the HCD issued a technical memo which clarified that cities do need to allow for ADUs and JADUs and to allow a total of four units on a lot without the lot split. And so when the city adopted the urgency ordinance, it was really early on and there was no precedence or technical guidance yet. So subsequently, HCD has made some clarifications. So we are making those changes to make sure that we're consistent with state law. So I'm gonna go ahead and go over what our current code states. So for development with no lot split, A maximum of two units are allowed with no new ADUs or JADUs. Currently our code also states that for development with lot split, a total of two units maximum are allowed per each subdivided lot and no new ADUs or JADUs are allowed. This standard currently conflicts with state law and it's not currently being enforced. So under the proposed code, or what state law allows, a maximum of four units are allowed, so two primary units, and then a JDU and an ADU are allowed, creating a total of four.

Are you talking about R1 zone here?

Yes, in an R1 zone lot.

You said unit. You said apartment. Not house, not home. Not ADU, you said.

These are basically single-family homes.

Okay, so it's not an apartment.

It's not an apartment.

Okay. I heard apartment complex.

Oh, we apologize. Okay. And then forward development with a lot split. You could develop a maximum of two units per each of the subdivided lots. And ADUs, RGADUs are allowed, whether they're existing or new. However, it's still a maximum of two per each lot split. And so I'm just going to go over next some development scenarios that can be developed under our new code. And just keep in mind that these are just some examples. It doesn't represent every possible scenario that the site could be developed with. So in the first example, a developer can build two SB9 units. They could be attached. So these are two single-family homes that are attached. And then you can have a JDU and a detached JDU in the back. An owner can also have an existing single-family home with an attached ADU, and they can build another SB9 unit in the back with a JADU. So it creates a total of four units on the lot.

That's without subdivision?

Without subdivision, yes. And in the last scenario here, you could build two SMU9 units or their primary dwelling units that are detached from each other. One can have an attached ADU, and one can have a JADU, creating a total of four units. Developers don't have to build all four units, but they can build a maximum of four units. For developments with a lot split, a developer may develop the site and split the lot in half and develop, you know, a SB9 unit on each of these lots with a detached ADU in the back. And so, once again, this is a maximum of two units on each of those lots and a total of four from the original lot. or they can create a flag lot. A owner may have an existing house with the JADU in there, and they would like to build a flag lot with two SB9 units in the back. In the last scenario, an owner can subdivide the lot horizontally, creating a landlocked parcel. Of course, in this case, you wouldn't need an easement for access to the street. They can build a SB9 unit with an ADU and another SB9 unit in the back with a JADU. Once again, these are all just some examples. There could be other development scenarios that the property owner may propose.

I have a question on the last one.

Yes.

The driveway was on the side? Get to the back?

The driveway, I mean, it could be, you know, to the side, yeah, and then with kind of like a flag lot, like from the street and providing access to the rear lot in the back.

Now, in regard to parking, is it enforced to have parking under the building?

The parking, there's a requirement of one parking space per unit, and yeah, it could be on their driveway. It could be tandem as long as they're not sharing it with another unit.

Okay.

So a lot of the changes that we're making is due to actually the new legislative update that just came out. So I'm gonna go over some of the key changes with SB 540. SO THE CITY MUST APPROVE OR DENY AN APPLICATION WITHIN 60 DAYS. CURRENTLY THE CITY IS MEETING THIS REQUIREMENT. WE ALREADY HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE. WE HAVE A PLAN CHECK PROCESS FOR ALL SB9 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND WE REVIEW THESE PROJECTS WITHIN THE 60 DAY TIMEFRAMES. Also, I think this next one is probably one of the more significant requirements that is impacting a lot of our changes. The city may no longer impose development standards that do not apply to the underlying zone, meaning that you can't create more restrictive requirements for the SB9 units that are not required by, you know, for the single family homes in the R1 lots. For example, we can no longer impose a 16 foot height limit on the SB9 units when our code allows single family homes to be two stories tall with a 35 foot height limit. And the same thing with lot coverage, it can't be more restrictive. So next, I'm just gonna go over some of the key changes that we're making to the code to be consistent with state law. So the first two, I've already gone over it. It has to do with the number of units allowed, so I'm not going to go over that one again. As I mentioned, in terms of height, currently there is a 16-foot height limit for SB9 units. The code will now be changed to say it's subject to the height requirements of the underlying R01 zone. And that is currently at two stories with the 30 feet maximum.

I have a question for you. The 16 feet maximum, is that mandatory by the state?

Well, currently it's... The 16 foot came out when the original state law for SB 9 came out in 2022. So it indicated 16 feet.

Okay. Will that affect the 35 feet high?

The 16 feet is what's currently in the code. We are no longer allowed to have that. It is in violation of state law. The proposed code will be two stories or 35 feet in height, which is what the R1 zone allows for for a single family house.

Okay. The city always had that, 35 feet?

No, the city currently has a 16-foot maximum for SB9 units, but we are not enforcing it.

I'm talking about the residential home, single home. Duplex, like a two-story house, you're allowed to have 35 feet before. Correct.

Right.

We're not changing the height. We're just proposing that the SB9 units match the underlying zoning, which allows for the two stories, 35 feet. Perfect. Okay.

Currently, we also have a size limit of 800 square feet for SB 9 units. And in our proposed code, there will be no size limitations, so there's no specific size requirement. However, there is a lot coverage requirement, so that could help restrict the size. Next, for lot coverage, you know, it's a maximum of 40% in our code currently, and it will be revised, the language will be revised to say same as the underlying R1 zone, which is currently at 40%.

I have a question. What's the minimum size for sub-lot division?

They can subdivide pretty much any lot in the city. The minimum size you can create out of a SB 9 is 2,200 square feet. But since the average lot in Westminster is 5,000 square feet or more, you'd be able to subdivide any lot.

2,500 each?

So you have to divide roughly in half.

Got it.

So the subdivision doesn't matter the size what it is?

It doesn't matter what the size of the lot is, but the two lots that are created have to be roughly 50-50. You can't take a 10,000 square foot lot and create a 2,000 square foot lot and an 8,000 square foot lot.

So there's a lot of 2,000 square feet. Is it allowed to split it half-half, 1,000, 1,000?

You can't split anything. There's a minimum then. Well, you can't split anything less than 4,400 square feet. The city really doesn't have any lots that size.

Okay. 5,000 is good enough. Okay. Thank you.

For CEQA, this zoning text amendment is exempt from CEQA per the government code sections that regulate SB9. In the SB9 government code, it specifically indicates that a city that is adopting a zoning text amendment to implement state law will be exempt from CEQA. And so staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of case 2025-0176 to adopt a zoning text amendment to amend chapter 16.12 and chapter 17.400.122 of the Westminster Municipal Code through the draft resolution. And this concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Any question for staff?

I do. Please go to the page number three regarding proposed change. Number of units?

Oh, number of units, yes.

Current code, two primary units maximum. And proposed code, four units maximum with no more than two being primary units. What do you mean by primary unit? Is that the owner has to be occupied or what does it mean?

It just means that they are not ADUs or JADUs. So if you're developing an SB9 project, those two units will be your primary units and they will follow the SB9 laws and not the ADUs and JADUs. So they're just, the SB9 units are like the primary house, the main house on the lot. So they're like a regular single family home.

And the second question is, does this apply to single home? And how about home or the house in the HOA area? How is you overcome the rules and regulation of HOA?

So these regulations are imposed by the states, so they kind of supersede the HOA. Yeah, basically HOA cannot prevent a property owner from doing this if they're complying with state law.

That would be up to the HOA. The city sets its standards. If the HOA wants to set standards that would disallow SB 9, that would be on them because they're CC&Rs. They could add in restrictions into CC&Rs. Whether or not those would be found legal by the court, that's beyond what we're considering.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions?

Well, yeah, I do have a question. My concern is with the parking for the residents around. How is that, you know, being a solution for overcrowded parking and such? You know, this is going to be a concern with the residents? That's...

So it will be a concern. Unfortunately, the state has limited what we are allowed to ask for. So we can ask for a parking space on the property, but that does not have to be in a garage. It doesn't have to be in a carport. It could just be a slab of cement that you have designated as parking. But unfortunately, we are limited in what we can do to address the problem at the city level by the state.

So in that case, they're allowed to park on the grass, but instead of bad grass in the front?

No, they cannot park on the grass by our city code. They would have to put in like a driveway with parking spots.

City code is 20 feet setback, right, in front.

If they had a driveway in that front 20 feet, which we allow, they could park in that driveway.

So if we go back, let's say if the 20 feet setback, the grass, they decide to put a cement on it, then they could park on it?

Well, we have landscape standards that would still apply. So you can only hardscape so much of your front yard. So as long as they were within that portion of the code, possibly. But you couldn't just take your entire front lawn, hardscape it, and use your entire front setback for parking. We do have limitations, and it is against city code to park on a landscaped area.

There is some houses like that in the city.

There are, and I do know code enforcement has been cracking down on them. It's just hard to get to all of them.

Okay. Now I have another question. Why are my page proposed changes different than the rest of my colleagues here?

Which one?

This page. Oh. Yeah.

No, there's two of them.

I didn't see it. So I don't have it with me, maybe?

Oh, right there.

There's one with, yeah, just...

It was switched the other way.

Oh.

We were trying to save paper. Okay, got it. Got it.

Okay. Any more questions? Okay, we can open the public hearing now.

Anyone wish to speak on this?

Okay, Chair, I have one speaker, Terry Raines.

Hello, I disagree with staff's decision due to the number of texts and formatting changes. A redlined copy of the text was not provided. Other legislative bodies don't have that problem. I could have easily redlined the existing code for you. Expecting commissioners or the city council to trust that staff's vague summaries in the staff report accurately reflect the totality of the proposed amendments is ludicrous. Staff also presented the proposed amended codes in the opposite order that they presented in the existing code, making it even more difficult to manually compare. The subject intro of the staff report wrongly references section 17-400-122 of the municipal code as a chapter. It's not. It's a section under chapter 17-400, which coincidentally has an error in its title, standards for specific land uses and what? Page three, staff report error and in the presentation. SB 540 should be SB 450. Somebody's transposing. A notice of public hearing must contain the precise date, time, and location. The notice published in the Herald Journal State of both hearings tonight will be held in the council chambers at 8200 Westminster Boulevard. Oops. As to the proposed amendments, I'll start with the material error. Section 17-400-122 F1 wrongly states, if an application is not approved or denied within this timeframe, the application shall be deemed Complete no wrong per state code. It shall be deemed approved same error in the proposed section 16 12 030 words matter other Corrections section a for purposes of this section the following definition shall apply should be plural definitions be to remove as That section read on September 16 2021 you don't put that in codes same under section 16 12 020 be And then BC3, need to capitalize the word section before 7060, same under section 1612010 and 12100. C1A and B, fix the indentation. C4B should have the number four in parentheses for consistency. In fact, throughout there is gross inconsistency in the expression of numerical values. Read them, find them, and fix them. Sections C5A and B are redundant. A covers all detached structures on the same lot, including between primary dwellings. A, another number expression inconsistency. There are far too many for me to comment on. C5C should say on the same lot for consistency. Throughout the proposed codes are references to standards within the underlying R1 zone without providing any applicable sections or even chapters of the municipal code. At a minimum, these references should be to chapter 17 210 residential zoning districts. SB 9 applicants are typically not professional developers and need to know where to find all SB 9 development standards, including those in the underlying R1 zone. Also throughout these codes, replace persons or families with households, regular language. Lastly, two unit development should be hyphenated as two hyphen unit development. Two unit is a compound and is to be hyphenated because it functions as a single adjective describing a noun that follows it. That's basic grammar, folks. I provided hard copies for all of you of these comments.

Thank you. Any other speakers?

Chair, I have no more speakers.

Okay, we're going to close the public hearing on this item. Discussion?

Do we have anything to say?

No. Okay. Listening to Terry and the speaker here, what she's stated right now, I think there's a lot of correction that needs to be made before we make a decision on this item. So I prefer...

Chair, if I may, this has been run through our attorney multiple times. We are... This has been checked out by somebody in the legal profession who this is what they do.

Okay, attorney, if you don't mind, can you please explain what you stated right now?

Explain to us what should be done legally. So I was at the review of this document, but I trust my colleagues reviewed this document and found it okay. My office represents there's no legal errors within the document that would prohibit the Planning Commission tonight from approving this document, approving the code revisions, and sending it to City Council for review. Okay, so basically there's no error that will affect the approval. There's no error that would affect the approval. If there were, I'm not saying they are, but if there were grammatical or typographical errors, those are ministerial things that could be.

How about the numbers you spoke about, the 520, whatever it is, all that stuff?

I'm not going to go through the concerns. This has been checked out by my office. I am confident this is legally sufficient. If there are minor typographical errors, they would be cleaned up before it is actually placed in the code.

Okay.

Thank you for the clarification.

And as far as the transposions, that isn't in the actual code? That doesn't matter? If you guys knew how many ABs and SBs we had to keep track of.

Mainly, I don't want to vote on something that is going to affect the decision.

And we understand. And there's nothing in here, like Tarquin said, there's nothing in here that materially affects your approval.

Okay.

Okay.

Any motion?

I make a motion.

On that one? We should approve it. Okay. Approve the plan, right? You make a motion to approve. Yes. I second.

I have a motion made by Vice Chair Bui, seconded by Chair Hamadi for the Planning Commission to recommend approval case number 2025-0176 to the City Council and adopt a resolution entitled a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Westminster, California recommending that the City Council approve a zoning text amendment case number 2025-0176, amending chapter 16.12 and section 17.400.122 of the Westminster Municipal Code to implement updates to state law relating to two-unit housing developments and two-lot subdivisions. I'll go ahead and call roll. Commissioner Tran?

Yes.

Vice Chair Bowie?

Yes.

Chair Hamadi? Yes. Motion carried, 3-0.

Thank you. Move to case 8.2, case 20250183. It's your turn now.

Sorry, with the close quarters, we have to move around a little bit.

Quick question before we start on this. How come we never received anything by email?

That was supposed to get everything before you, and the public was supposed to get it on time. The public did get it on time. How about us? Because it was an error on our part. We are going through a transition. We don't want that to happen again. It won't happen again. We're going through a transition.

I almost didn't come. Be honest with you. I almost didn't come here because of this. But now I came just to get things done.

We apologize, but we did make sure the binders were to you. You actually got the binders a day earlier than normal.

Yeah.

So we made sure you had the materials you needed to review this.

Thank you.

All right, so we're here for case 2025-0183. This is a request from the city to amend chapter 17.400.135, residential uses, accessory dwelling units of the Westminster Municipal Code. So just for background, the first ADU laws were passed by the state in 2017. Those allowed ADUs on basically any single family residential project or parcel or multifamily parcel in the state. To deal with these laws, Westminster passed an urgency ordinance in late 2019, and then passed a permanent ordinance in early 2021. That permanent ordinance also dealt with some updates to the ADU law, which had been passed between 2017 and 2020. However, since this time, the state has passed additional bills, which have caused the Westminster Municipal Code section on ADUs to be out of line with state law. The changes to the code we're bringing to you tonight are changes that are driven by changes in the state law. Westminster must adopt a code which meets the state law. It is a program within our housing element, and if Westminster does not have an ADU section that has been approved by HCD, HCD and the state could tell us to follow only state law for ADUs, which is much more permissive than the city is currently. There are a few major changes with this update. Per SB 1211, up to eight detached ADUs are allowed on existing multifamily properties. Up to eight, they cannot have more than the current number of units on a lot. So if they only have six units, they can only do six ADUs. If they have 48 units, they can still only do the eight ADUs.

That apply to duplex, triplex, and like R3, R4 zone?

It could, but it would only be up to the number of units on the lot. So if they have a duplex, they could only do two. Okay. Additionally, per AB 22221 and SB 897, attached ADUs may have the height of the underlying zoning, which would allow for two-story ADUs, something the Westminster Municipal Code does not allow for. And detached ADUs may have a height of up to 20 feet, depending on their proximity to transit stops and the pitch of the roof of the existing house. The state understands that cities do want to keep some aesthetic similarities between the houses, so that extra two feet that they can get no matter what is basically, if you have a steep roof on a house, they're allowing for you to possibly put the steep roof on the ADU. It is also important to note that per AB 2221 and SB 897, a city's ADU code can be found null and void if these changes are not adopted. When staff brought the initiation of the ADU code text amendment to the Planning Commission, some of the commissioners made some comments about trying to restrict ADUs and JADUs as much as possible to keep the single family nature of the neighborhoods. With that in mind, JDUs are only going to, we have restricted them to single family zoned properties. Our code is much broader than the state statute, so we are narrowing this down to match the state statute. Currently, ADUs of 800 square feet or less are exempt from lot coverage. While this doesn't change the size of an ADU, It could allow a homeowner to do a larger addition to his house in the future. We are going to restrict that so ADUs count towards lot coverage. Again, it won't change the size of ADUs, but it will keep people from doing an 800-square-foot addition to their house and getting their lot coverage up to 50%, 60% like we see in some cases right now. Additionally, for kind of a good neighborly thing, we are restricting exterior lighting so that it must be contained on the property. This would restrict floodlights or open lights on an ADU that kind of glare out across property lines. So they can have exterior lighting. It just needs to be shielded in such a way where that light doesn't spill onto their neighbor's property. Also, per comments from the Planning Commission, it is not included in the... attached or the proposed language you have but the commission may recommend limiting maximum size of constructed ADUs to 1,000 square feet to the city council. The city currently allows for 1,200 square feet and that's the size that is included in the code currently but if the commission wishes they can during their motion request that staff take the maximum size of 1,000 square feet to council for approval. CEQA does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance for a city implementing state ADU laws. And with that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolution 25-018, recommending approval of case 2025-0183 to the city council. That's staff's report, and we're here to answer any questions.

The 1,000 square feet. The state allows 1200. If we go with the 1000 square feet, will that get us in trouble with the state?

No, the state allows a city to The state sets a maximum size for ADUs of 1,200 square feet. That is currently what is in Westminster City Code.

Okay.

State law also gives cities the option to cap an ADU at 1,000 square feet. That is not included in the code that is before you, but if you wish when you pass a motion, you could ask for that language to be included when it is presented to the city council. Yeah.

Okay. Do you have any questions? Not in this one.

Okay. I'm going to move approval for the recommendation. Oh, I'm so sorry. I apologize. I'm so sorry. I'm going to open the public hearing. My apology. Come on in.

Chair, we have one speaker, Terry Raines.

Hello, amend the resolution title, missing the word two, should be related to accessory dwelling units. Same comments as 8.1 regarding no red line version and the published notice for the hearing. As to the proposed amendment, I'll start with one material error. Section 17400135F2, the cited code is wrong. 362040, not 140. Other corrections, A1, removed while preserving the character and integrity of Westminster Residential Uses and Neighborhoods. ADU state law in this code does quite the opposite. B3, add attached before accessory structure. C2, city attorney, I question legality of the city's ordinance not allowing JADUs in mixed-use zones on lots that allow for single-family homes. In a mixed-use zone allows for single-family dwelling, the city must permit a JADU on a lot with a single-family home per state law and even further down in this amended code section in 1A. Strike C3B conflicts with state law and this amended code. D3, add accessory dwelling before unit to match state statute. F2D, WRONG STATUTE CITED AGAIN AMEND TO MATCH 66324C FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION IMPACT FEE HAS THE SAME MEANING AS THE TERM FEE AS DEFINED IN SUBDIVISION B OF SECTION 6600 EXCEPT THAT IT ALSO INCLUDES FEES SPECIFIED IN SECTION 66477 F3A MATERIAL ERROR CITED CODE IS WRONG SHOULD BE 66324B NOT A G DOES THE CITY ENGINEER Maintain such a map. Explain exactly how and why this would not apply to ADUs approved pursuant to 17-400-135. I. Add consecutive between 30 and days to match state law. L4A. Commissioners, consider imposing a maximum size of 1,000 square feet or 50% of the living Area of the primary dwelling, whichever is less, is allowed by state law, replacing the current 1,200 square feet maximum. Same for L4B. L6A, question the legality of the city prohibiting floodlights on ADUs as long as they do not spill onto adjacent property, city attorney. L7A, question the legality of the city prohibiting external stairways to access ADUs on the second floor of the primary dwelling, conflicts with state law. L7B conflicts with A, allowing for them, if screened properly. l twelve at least before eight hundred square feet to match state law m one wrongly references section eighteen one two one five o below there is no such code here or elsewhere m eight b no specific mention of the five hundred feet maximum in the cited code six six three 66333C. M8C, again, insert consecutive between 30 and days to match state law. M8D, change A to another before government agency to adhere to 66333B. N1B, city attorney, check the language. Don't think you can limit just up to 800 square feet even if combined with JADU. N3, again, insert consecutive between 30 and days to match state law. Throughout the proposed code, there are major inconsistencies in expression and numerical values. Pick a code format. and apply it to all city zoning codes, correcting inconsistencies like this any time a zoning code is amended. Within the proposed amendments here and for item 8.1, there is no standard. The format is all over the place. And I provided comments to me.

My apologies, time is over.

For your reference. Incorrect statutes are material, City Attorney.

Do you like to comment on all that she said?

Would the planning commission like me to comment on Ms. Ray's comments?

Okay. You've heard what I've heard. Yes. Do you have anything to comment on?

I just... Mr. Peckman, did my office review this?

Lisa Kranich reviewed it from your office. Thank you.

Anything you have to say, Kent, at all?

This was reviewed by an attorney from Jones and Mayer. They provided us with this. Statute numbers change. That may be what happened with some of those. And some of her statements are just wrong. For example, when she says, M1B, city attorney, check the language here, don't think you can limit it to just 800 square feet. We absolutely can, because this is a special class of mandatory approval that is straight from the law. So there are other, like, yes, we can absolutely put in the code that light has to be constrained on your property. Other cities have done it. We can do it. That is absolutely, we can do that.

We can't prohibit floodlights, period.

Yes, we can, actually. If it's a municipal code, if we pass something that says light cannot spill on other properties, we can enforce that. That's all you can say. So, but this has been checked by attorneys. But does it have to state floodlights not allowed? We're just, what we're stating is for ADUs.

General, any lights that is going to spill on other properties.

Correct. Since these have the... option of being so much closer to property lines. We don't want somebody putting out, it doesn't even have to be a floodlight. I mean, somebody just puts out an exposed bulb for a door. That's going on in your neighbor's property.

We don't want that. So let's say the floodlight goes really low, doesn't affect the neighbor. Okay, it's okay.

We'll pass. If it's contained on property, but floodlights, what we're looking at is when people light up their entire yard with a light. Or you might have a neighbor who they've got the automatic light that comes on at 2 in the morning when a cat walks by, and your whole cul-de-sac or street lights up.

Sometimes people have parties, let's say, on the weekend. They need some lights.

That's fine. This isn't for a one-off like that. This is a quality-of-life issue for the neighbors so that they don't constantly have lights that are interrupting their private use of their backyard or their kitchen or whatever at night.

Okay. Any other speakers?

No more speakers, Chair. Okay, thanks.

Go ahead, Tony. I have a question regarding the public comment. I think next time you should put the restraint for three minutes and make sure that it didn't go through. Secondly, when you talk and the public should be quiet because what? It was video recording, and the public may see that we did not keep the good control of our meeting. So keep that in mind and keep everything in a civilized way.

Thank you.

Okay. Any questions to the staff?

No, I don't.

Okay, I'm going to move approval of the case 2025-0183. Any second?

I make the motion. Second for it. Roll call, please.

I have a motion made by Chair Hamadi, seconded by Vice Chair Buoy for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of case number 2025-0183 to the City Council and adopt a resolution entitled a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Westminster, California recommending sorry, that the City Council approve a zoning text amendment, case number 2025-0183, amending chapter 17-4, I'm sorry, .400.135 of the Westminster Municipal Code to implement updates to state law relating to accessory dwelling units. I'll go ahead and call roll. Commissioner Tran?

Yes.

Vice Chair Bowie?

Yes.

Chair Hamadi? Yes. Motion carried, 3-0.

Thank you. We go to number 9, regular business. There's none. Reports none. Matter from staff?

I'd just like to report that we have been in constant contact with the owner of Lavender. They are moving forward with permits for the kitchen.

Perfect. Perfect. Okay, we go to number 11. Matters from the Planning Commission, including AB 1234. Reports when required? None.

Okay.

We're adjourned.

Thank you.

so