Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That's absolutely amazing. Good evening. I would like to call the regular meeting of the planning commission to order. Today's date is 12/17/2025, and the time is 6PM. Roll call, please.

Chair Hamani?

Here.

Vice chair Holbert?

Here.

Commissioner Anderson? Here. Commissioner Nguyen?

Here.

Commissioner Tran?

Here.

Cherry Applecorn. Sorry.

Thank you. Please join me to the flag. I

pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We got number three, a report from planning secretary, late communication items. We have three reports from the planning secretary, late communication, planning secured Are there any other communications?

Was one late communication from invited for you and is on the dice.

I don't see it. Is it?

Yeah. It's in the folder.

Oh, it's right below. Okay.

So so was the was the hearing open, Ken? It says it was not. This communication says it wasn't, but was was the

It was that we held a public hearing. The applicant was asked to talk. The community members were asked to talk. The public hearing was open. But I would like to, when we get to that point, pull the August six minutes from consideration for a from the agenda tonight. We'll fix that and get it back for the next meeting.

Mhmm. Okay. Sounds good.

Okay. Number four, ex party communication. Any ex party? None? Go to next one. Special presentation. Five for special none. Do I have none? Six, oral communication. Do I have to open the nobody's here. Should we open the oral communication or not?

There's no one in the audience.

The record can just reflect there's no one in the audience.

Okay. Great. So skipping and go to number seven. Approval of minutes.

Ken, you wanted August 6 pulled?

Yes. So, any motion we'd like would pull the August and we'll bring those back at the first meeting we have in January.

Okay, then. So, we'll we'll vote on the rest. Okay. I'd move to approve. I second.

And for clarification, that's July 2, November 5, and November 19?

Correct. And July yeah. 23 of them. I have a motion on the table. We

have a motion by commissioner Anderson, second by chair Hamadi

Yes.

To approve the regular minutes of 07/02/2025, 11/05/2025, and November 19, meaning cancellation. Correct. Commissioner Anderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen?

Yes.

Commissioner Tran?

Yes.

Vice chair Wolbert?

Yes.

Chair Hamadi? Yes. Motion carried.

Thank you. We got number eight, public hearing. Also, I don't see anybody in here. Should we open public hearing?

Let's we first need a staff report.

Okay.

Then we can open and close the public hearing for the formality of the record.

Okay. Now we'll go to case number 2025Dash0237. I would like to call just again.

Alright. Thank you, chair, vice chair, and commissioners. Ken Fichelman, principal planner for the city. We are here for case 2025Dash0237. This is a zoning text amendment, which is a request to amend section seventeen point three three zero point zero four zero prohibited signs with respect to prohibiting foam, three d printed, and cut acrylic signage.

Section seventeen point three three zero point zero eight five, standards for specific sign types with respect to the allowable size of wall signs. And chapter seventeen point seven hundred, definitions of specialized terms to add a definition for transparency and opaqueness. So just for background, chapter 17.33 signs regulate signage within the city. Recently, both planning staff and code enforcement staff have found some code sections to be problematic with respect to enforcement and interpretation, so we are bringing the zoning text amendment to the commission tonight to try to fix those issues. The first section we're looking to amend seventeen point three three zero point zero four zero.

This is the section of the code that lists the prohibited sign types within the city. This amendment would add foam, three d printed, and cut acrylic signage as prohibited sign types. When we say acrylic signage, we're not looking to ban or prohibit acrylic faces on signs. So if you have a channel letter sign or a box sign, you could still do the acrylic face for that. When it says cut acrylic signage, that is basically just acrylic letters that they put on the sides of buildings.

So these are examples of foam and acrylic signs. You can see they're just they they're lightweight, You can just stick them onto the wall. They add no depth and that is part of our problem. So you don't need a building permit for these type of signs which makes it harder for the city to regulate. The other issue is foam and the three d printed deteriorate quickly in weather.

And all three, since they are just stuck to the building, have a tendency for individual letters to fall off. When they do, they take paint with them and that's when we get kind of decrepit looking signs on buildings within the city. So we're looking to ban those three if they want if we had a building that want to put up letters, individual letters, they could still do that. We would just ask that they use a metal letter sign like the ones before you now. Those can be flushed, those can stick out from the building to provide some depth, but because they are metal they don't have the weathering problems of the foam three d printed and acrylic.

And because they are metal they are heavier and do require a building permit allowing the city to regulate signage more effectively. This has really been a problem with code enforcement because we do have a number you can put these up in an hour on a Saturday so we do get businesses kind of putting these up on the weekend and it's hard for code to see if they're legal signs or not because there's no building permit associated

with them.

Secondly, we're looking to amend section seventeen point three three zero point zero eight five standards for specific sign types. Table three eleven refers to a table b when it talks about the maximum size of wall signs. Well, the problem for planning is table b does not exist. That is nowhere in the code. What we're doing is just removing that notation.

When you there are other sections of the code we can use to get to assign how big the sign should be. There's an envelope. There's a maximum size. But what we're doing is making it simple for anybody to see how big a sign was and proposing a maximum size of 1.5 square feet for a wall sign for any for every lineal foot of building or tenant frontage. So that would mean if you've got a twenties if you're in a retail center, you have a 20 foot storefront, you could put in a 30 square foot sign.

So that'd be about a three by 10 sign. This is pretty this is right around where other cities are. Most cities are either one square foot per lineal foot or 1.5 per lineal foot. We're going on the high end just to give with the retail market the way it is just to give retailers, businesses the visibility from the street. And lastly, we're looking to amend section seventeen point seven hundred, definitions of specialized terms.

Several sections of the Westminster Municipal Code call for transparency or transparent windows on storefronts. Unfortunately, the Westminster Municipal Code does not define what this means. So we're having a lot of problems with stores putting heavy tint on the front of windows, the kind where you basically have to put your face up to the window to look through it. And we really are having issues, especially code, with saying that's not transparent because our code doesn't define it. So what we're looking to do is adding a definition for transparency opaqueness.

We want to set transparency at 50% transmittal of light. So this is an actual industry standards. They have tools that are fairly cheap. You can actually get kind of cheap ones for your phone. You put it on the inside the window, it measures how much light is going through and tells you how transparent the window is. This would still allow stores to have a window tint. It would just make sure that there's always that visibility into the store. And because it's easily measured, it makes it very easy for code enforcement to go out and enforce on transparency.

But what if they have curtains?

Curtains are behind the window. That might be okay. What we're trying to get rid of is the blacked out windows that you can see from the storefront or the ones that are totally covered with ads. Okay. This is not a project per CEQA. And with that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of case number 2025Dash0237 to the City Council. That's my presentation. I'm available for any questions you may have.

Dimitris, anything? Have anything? You know, go ahead.

I just have a couple of questions real quick. When it comes to the signage, the three d printed and acrylic lettering, is there anything in the code also that talks about the illumination of

the sign? Illumination is set per zone. So yes, there are sections that talk about whether or not you're gonna have an illuminated sign.

Okay. And then when it comes to the the glass section, We have a lot of these new storefronts popping up, it seems like, around the city, where there are these ridiculously bright I would think there are probably 6,000 or 7,000 Kelvin temperature white lights around the glass. And they're bright with chrome frames, and they look exceptionally odd. Is there any plans for correcting some of that, like how those windows are illuminated? I know we're addressing tint here tonight.

But just out of curiosity, those bright lights that people are installing behind the windows, is there anything in the code that prohibits them from that? Or is that something of consideration in the future?

I'd have to look and see if there's anything in the code that prohibits it. It's not something we permit. Those are not that's nothing the city has permitted because I think I know a few of the storefronts you're talking about that I see on my drive home. We can look into whether or not we can have code enforced on them. I would imagine there might be something in a different section of the code that says light may not, pass property lines at whatever temperature are usually lumined. So I can look into that for you and I can also address code to see if they can enforce on that.

Yeah, I was just thinking, you know, if we have the proper signs that are going to be of longevity that are properly illuminated to illuminate the storefront and the business, I think in lieu of creating those signs, what some businesses and commercial applications are doing is they're lighting these window boxes up to try to draw attention to their storefront, where we want the attention to be to the name of the store versus just square lights and a window. So, you know, just for future purposes, I think that may be something we want to add to the signage.

I'm gonna make a comment on this if don't mind.

Well, I can I if I may address

Go ahead?

Commissioner Wolbert first. So, I like I said, I'll look into that but we are doing a full code text or a full zoning code review. I will also make sure that if there isn't anything, we address that in the zoning code text when we redo it. Because, yeah, there should be something. Because I know what you're talking about. I know of one where I think they've actually got the roof outlined. And what we can do is add language that says, no exterior lighting except for signs or security lighting and then we could say security lighting has to be contained within your property. So that would mean the only light that you could have shining into the public space would be signage, and we can regulate that. So if it isn't there, I will make sure I pass on to our consultants that we want to add something to the code. Perfect.

Thank you.

I also wanna add something about this. If you want if the business needs that light little bit lighting to bring customers to keep their business in

the

city, if it's not too bright, I prefer to keep it than taking it out and then lose customers. Because as you drive, let's say, in daytime or nighttime, that might get your attention. You might stop by and go inside the business. But if it's gonna affect the business and the business that's not making it and shut down, go somewhere else, I don't want that to happen.

Which I understand, but I think I mean, this is beyond what we're talking about tonight. But we get into a point where how much it's an impact on Yeah. The public realm. So there It all depends how

much lighting there is. If it's maybe too much or too big, maybe. But if it's small enough, people just recognize it, the business.

Well, that's what the signage is for. So if people are coming in, getting the signage permits like they're supposed to, putting in nice channel letter or box signs, those signs provide the light that you and to vice chair Wolbert's point, if you see their sign, you know what business they are. If you just see white lights, it's more annoying, and you don't know what they're doing.

But sometimes as you drive, you don't look at the sign. That light might draw you to look at that sign. What is it about? If, let's say, a restaurant, you wanna eat, you just go in.

But I would counter what happens when every business does that, and then it doesn't stand out anymore. So you've just got white light everywhere, and you're ignoring all of it because every storefront has it.

Okay. Any other? We're done.

To me, as long as safety and no hurt people, I think we're okay. Yeah. We need to to open a business, operation a business so the city can collect more tax. And to me, no problem. A lot of safety.

Anyone else?

I'm pleased to see that staff's proactive position on this to improve our signage. And so this is encouraging and as time goes by, Ken, if you see other areas where we do the same, where you could do the same and bring that forward, that'd be great.

And I think what we've tried to do over the last year since I've kind of taken over the planning department is be more proactive. We've been trying to bring you more of these smaller code text amendments, quality of life issues because there's things we can get through that have sometimes an outsized impact on what we're seeing in the city. I can also share that we do have a full update of the sign code underway. That should come to hopefully sometime next year, but it is in the works. So this is just a minor fix for to make things easier to enforce for planning, for building, for code enforcement and then we will do a full redo of the signed code sometime into next year.

Okay, thank you. Can I have a question? Open it up. I'm sorry. I

have a question. I was just wondering, for the small business that just want to the small business that can't afford to do this type of sign, do they have a choice I'm just concerned with those small business that, you know, because the previous acrylic sign, those are cheaper method of doing things. Now that they will have to get permit, would that, you know, alter their, you know, getting business within the city?

It depends. I mean, it's kind of hard to answer because most of the commercial centers are already set up where they either have box signs or they've gone channel letter. With channel letter are the ones where what you see from the outside is like an emblem or the individual letters and it's lit. And there's actually something called a raceway, like it's the support for that sign. It's all the electrical. It's running behind a wall. You don't normally see it. So those are what you normally see for commercial businesses. And what we try to do as a city is get those centers to enter into sign programs. So the only signs you can do are what's allowed by the sign programs.

If you are in a center that has box signs, it is really inexpensive to get a new face created for one of those signs and we don't permit that. We permitted the original sign that went in the box cabinet. You don't have to re permit the whole thing when you get a sign change out. You just can replace that sign. So that's cheap for, that's usually commercial districts, so your c one, c two zones. Okay. Where we see more of this type of sign is industrial buildings. And those are the buildings that are less likely to care if a letter or two drops off and it peels paint with it. So this won't affect really your storefronts for retail or commercial. It's mainly going to affect your industrial, semi industrial spaces.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

Now you can go ahead and formally open

I'm gonna do it.

And close.

I'm gonna read the whole thing. Okay. Anyone wishing to speak on an open item? 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 twelve minutes to speak and will also be provided a three minutes rebuttal. With 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 allotted time or may ask a speaker to return to answer additional questions. I'm going to open the public hearing. Do we have any speakers?

Thank you, chair. There are no members of the public in attendance.

K. I'm gonna close the public hearing. Any motions?

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to pass, case number 2025DashO237.

I'll second.

We have a motion by commissioner Wolpert, second by chair Hamadi.

Roll call.

For the planning commission to approve case 2025Dash0237 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 2025Dash0237, amending section one seven point three three zero point zero four zero prohibited signs section one seven point three three zero point zero eight five standards for specific sign types and chapter one seven point seven zero zero definitions of specialized terms of the Westminster municipal code with respect to prohibiting foam, three d printed, and cut out acrylic signage clarifying the allowable area of wall signs and to provide a definition for transparency and opaqueness. Calling role for vote, please. Commissioner Anderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Tran?

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen?

Yes.

Vice chair Wolbert?

Yes.

Chair Hamadi?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Move to number nine. There's none. Number 10 reports. There's none. Matters from staff?

Staff has nothing to report tonight.

Thank you, sir. Number 12, matters from the planning commission including a b one two three four reports when required. Is there anything to report? Go ahead.

I just like to say thanks to, staff. And Ken, as you represent staff, please make sure to reach out to the rest of the staff and thank them for all the hard work they've done this year. We really appreciate it on the commission. I know I do. We've had some ups and downs and some challenges moving buildings and tech issues and all that kind of stuff this year. It's been a lot of fun. But you guys have performed exceptionally well at a very high professional level. We just wanna say thank you for that and wish everyone out there happy holidays, merry Christmas, and we'll see you in 2026.

Same thing. I wish everyone to have a good holidays. Merry Christmas to everyone. Happy New Year. And hopefully, we'll be in a better position next year in 2026.

K. We're adjourned at 06:22PM. Thank you, everyone.