Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission rejects staff bid to let director initiate some zoning code amendments, approves processing changes to application timelines
Summary
The commission voted 3–1 to deny a proposed change that would let the Community Development director initiate certain general-plan and zoning-code amendments, but approved revisions to application-processing rules to allow rolling 3-month resubmittal/action windows and to clarify expiration language.
The Westminster Planning Commission on April 2 split on two related code-text amendments: commissioners voted to reject staff’s proposal to let the Community Development director initiate certain general-plan and zoning-code amendments, but approved a separate amendment to the applications-processing section to shorten and clarify expiration and resubmittal timelines.
Staff proposed two changes. Case No. 2025-0039 would have amended WMC §17.62 to authorize the Community Development director (or designee) to initiate zoning-code and general-plan amendments on the city’s behalf; staff said the change would streamline housekeeping and statutory compliance work and is common in other California cities. Several commissioners and a public commenter objected, saying legislative initiation should remain with elected or formally appointed advisory bodies and worried the change reduced transparency. The commission voted to recommend denial of the proposed §17.62 amendment (motion to deny carried 3–1).
A second amendment, Case No. 2025-0040, would revise WMC §17.5 on applications processing and fees. Staff said the existing code’s single six-month completeness window sometimes caused projects to expire while applicants and staff were still exchanging required materials; the proposed approach provides multiple discrete three-month windows tied to applicant resubmittals and clarified timelines for when an application is considered expired. Commissioners discussed language and sequencing; after public input and an amendment on the floor the commission approved the processing-and-fees revisions with two specific edits: replace ambiguous expiration wording in Section D with an explicit reference to a 3-month resubmission period after an incomplete notice, and change the single 6-month extension reference in Section E to a 3‑month extension to align with the new windows. The motion to approve the Case No. 2025-0040 recommendation carried 4–0.
Public commenter Terry Raines urged clearer redline/clean versions of any code text sent to commissioners and recommended leaving initiation authority with the commission or council. Commissioners asked staff to return clari- fied ordinance language to city council; staff agreed to revise the draft ordinance language to reflect the commission’s edits before forwarding the item.
