Westminster City Council
SUBJECT
Title
Public Hearing - First Reading of Case No. 2025-0040, A request to Amend Section 17.500 Applications, Processing, and Fees of the Westminster Municipal Code.
End
publichearing
• Staff Report
• Mayor and City Council Questions for Staff
• Public Comments
• Mayor and Council Member Discussion
• Council Action
End
From: Sheri VanderDussen, Interim Community Development Director
Requested by: Administration
Prepared by: Ken Fichtelman, Principal Planner
____________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation
The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the Mayor and City Council consider and introduce for first reading an Ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (CASE NO. 2025-0040) AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE WESTMINSTER MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 17.500 APPLICATIONS, PROCESSING, AND FEES,” read by title only and waive further reading.
end
BACKGROUND
Staff is proposing to amend Section 17.500 Applications, Processing, and Fees with regards to the expiration of submitted projects. Currently, Section 17.500 contains a provision that an application made to the Planning Department shall be expired after six months if the project is not deemed complete or if, after being deemed complete, the application is delayed due to the applicant’s or property owner’s conduct. Staff has found that, particularly with large projects, the six-month period is insufficient to allow for an applicant to gather any requested information and respond to the staff’s comments and that the later clause is vague and open to interpretation.
On February 5, 2025, the Planning Commission initiated the Zoning Code Amendment through the approval of PC Resolution 25-008.
On April 2, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of this zoning code amendment to the City Council.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
Staff is proposing to amend Section 17.500.025 Initial Application Review to add language that expires applications based upon the unresponsive nature of applicants, not on set schedules. As previously noted, the current one-time, six-month window for a project to be deemed complete is often insufficient for larger projects, which often have resubmittals and require time to gather any required information. As currently written, the six-month window also includes any time that the project is under review by staff, making the window provide required documents or information even shorter for the applicant. A project could conceivably expire while under staff review. As such, staff have amended the code text to allow the applicant a three-month window after being deemed incomplete before a project is expired. While this makes an individual window shorter, it allows for multiple windows, which the current code does not allow for. Staff believe that the three-month window will be sufficient to allow an applicant to respond to staff’s incomplete letter and provide any required information.
Once a project has been deemed complete, the current code text calls for a project to be considered withdrawn when a project is “delayed as a result of the applicant(s) and/or property owner(s) conduct.” Staff finds that this language is vague and open to interpretation and therefore is proposing code text language that establishes a defined three-month timeline for action on a project. This action would not have to be a resubmittal, as some actions, such as CEQA review, may take an extended period of time to complete. If staff finds that an applicant takes no action on an application within a three-month period, then an application shall be considered withdrawn. It is important to note that staff will contact applicant every 30 days during this period and the applicant will be aware of the approaching date of expiration.
Staff also reviewed the entirety of the Section for inconsistencies or conflicts with state laws or other code sections. Upon review, it was determined that Section 17.500.030 Environmental Assessment omitted a key step in the CEQA process. That section has also been amended at this time.
The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed Zoning Code Amendment is not a project per CEQA § 21065 as it will not cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed amendment will not have a direct fiscal impact on the City.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed as to form.
CONCLUSION
The proposed zoning code amendment establishes a defined timeline for development projects with regards to project expiration and removes the ability for projects to expire while under staff review. The changes will eliminate what has been in recent years an obstacle to development within the City and create more certainty, both for staff and applicants, around when and why a project should be expired by staff.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Ordinance
2. Planning Commission Resolution 25-008
3. WMC Section 17.500 Applications, Processing, and Fees
REVIEWED BY
Erin Backs, Finance Director
City Attorney’s Office
Christine Cordon, City Manager