Westminster City Council
SUBJECT
Title
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s March 5, 2025 Approval of Case No. 2024-0277 for an Industrial Development proposed at 7474 Garden Grove Blvd.
End
publichearing
• Staff Report
• Comments or Presentation from Applicant
• Comments from Appellant (If Applicable)
• 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: Stephanie Tomaino, Contract Principal Planner
____________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation
Consider a Resolution to uphold, modify, or reverse the Planning Commission’s approval of Case No. 2024-0277.
end
BACKGROUND
On March 5, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution No. 25-002 approving Case No. 2024-0277 for a proposed project at 7474 Garden Grove Boulevard (APN 096-021-14). The applicant and property owner, Seventh Street Development on behalf of 7474 BP, LLC, submitted applications requesting: (1) a Development Review to construct a new approximately 69,498-square-foot single-tenant industrial warehouse building within the C-M (Commercial-Industrial) zoning district; and (2) an Administrative Adjustment to allow a building height increase of up to 10% above the 35-foot height limit. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project as the proposed industrial development complies with all applicable Zoning and Municipal Code development standards, and the requested Administrative Adjustment meets the required findings. Furthermore, the building features high-quality architectural design, improves the site’s curb appeal through enhanced landscaping, and the overall project reflects a substantial reinvestment in an existing industrial property.
As part of the Development Review application, an outside environmental consultant prepared a memo in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA memo, provided as Attachment 3.D, completed a comprehensive environmental review and concluded the project is consistent with the Class 32 exemption for in-fill development projects.
The Planning Commission staff report and attachments are provided as Attachment 3. During the March 5, 2025 meeting, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject applications, and considered written and oral comments, facts, and evidence presented by the applicant, City staff, and other interested parties. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the project and cites their specific findings for approval in their adopted resolution, which is provided as Attachment 3.A. The Planning Commission motion, carried by a 5-0 vote, included a condition of approval related to rooftop screening. The draft Planning Commission meeting minutes are provided as Attachment 4.
APPEAL OF CASE NO. 2024-0277
Pursuant to Westminster Municipal Code (WMC) Section 17.510.015, decisions of the Planning Commission do not take effect until the close of the appeal period. On March 17, 2025, the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) filed an appeal in accordance with WMC Chapter 17.640. The appeal challenges the Planning Commission’s approval of the project, contesting that additional environmental review and analysis are needed. The appellant’s appeal request is included as Attachment 2.
As a result, a public hearing was scheduled for the Mayor and City Council’s consideration of the Planning Commission’s decision. The Planning Commission’s recommendation is to uphold their approval of Case No. 2024-0277, and the Mayor and City Council may consider upholding that decision by adopting a resolution (Attachment 1). The resolution includes the Planning Commission’s original findings for approval of the project, as well as their additional condition.
Although the appeal identifies specific grounds for objection, the Mayor and City Council's review of the project is conducted as a de novo hearing. This means that this review is not limited to considering only the issues raised in the appeal, but the Mayor and City Council may also consider modifying or overturning the Planning Commission’s approval of Case No. 2024-0277. The Mayor and City Council could direct staff to return with a resolution with modifications, amendments to the conditions of approval, and/or findings to disapprove the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The appeal references the Cortese List in relation to the project’s eligibility for a Class 32 CEQA exemption. The Cortese List is a planning document developed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and is maintained by the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). It identifies sites with known releases of hazardous materials and is intended to inform land use decisions under CEQA. The list is publicly available online at: <https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list>. According to a review of DTSC’s database, the subject site is not on the Cortese List. Attachment 5 provides an excerpt from the database confirming that the project site is not listed.
Additionally, the CEQA memo, provided as Attachment 3.D, confirms that the project site is not listed on any active environmental databases that would indicate a contamination concern. The environmental memo further explains that the site is listed in some databases due to past activities by previous occupants. However, those listings were resolved with a “No Further Action” (NFA) determination, meaning they do not pose a current environmental concern. In addition, the site does not appear on state environmental databases that track cleanup sites, such as those maintained by DTSC or the State Water Board. There are no records of soil or groundwater contamination, and the site is not under any current investigation or enforcement actions.
Based on this review, the project continues to qualify for a Class 32 Infill Exemption, and no further environmental analysis under CEQA is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City Council’s action would not result in a direct fiscal impact.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed as to form.
CONCLUSION
If the Planning Commission’s approval of Case No. 2024-0277 is upheld, development of the project is expected to generate positive fiscal benefits to the City over time through increased property tax revenue and property values, job creation, and business attraction and economic development opportunities.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution
2. Application for Appeal
3. March 5, 2025: Planning Commission Staff Report & Attachments
• Attachment A: Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-002
• Attachment B: Applicant’s Project Description
• Attachment C: Trip Generation Study
• Attachment D: CEQA Exemption Memo
• Attachment E: Project Plans
4. March 5, 2025: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Draft)
5. Excerpt from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List
REVIEWED BY
Erin Backs, Finance Director
City Attorney’s Office
Christine Cordon, City Manager