A 74-home project is suing Westminster: if it wins, your neighborhood could be next

WESTMINSTER — A sizeable housing project on Westminster Boulevard has turned into a legal showdown between the city and a developer, centered on two questions: can the city raise its minimum building density just as a developer is about to file, and do Junior ADUs count as "affordable housing" under state incentive law?

On the evening of August 19, 2026, the Planning Commission voted 5–0 to deny the developer's appeal and affirm the Community Development Director's determination, according to the city's recording of the meeting. Commission Chair K.C. Wolbert, who made the motion, said he believed city staff "got it right." The developer has 15 days to appeal to the City Council. What follows is the dispute as it stood before and during the hearing.

According to the agenda packet for the August 19, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, 6351 Westminster Boulevard, LLC — represented by Andrew Fielder of Newport Beach-based Back Bay Investment Group — proposes 68 for-sale townhomes plus 6 Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), 74 homes in all, at 6351 Westminster Boulevard. Per the appeal, the developer offered to deed-restrict 4 of the JADUs for very-low-income households for 55 years — about 5.4% of all units — to qualify for incentives under California's Density Bonus Law.

The city disagrees. In its latest conformity letter, issued July 16, 2026, Planning Manager Ken Fichtelman wrote that the developer cannot guarantee the JADUs would actually be rented out: a deed restriction caps the rent if the owner rents, but cannot force a future homeowner to rent out that part of the house. In the city's view, the project therefore lacks its required affordable component and does not qualify for the Density Bonus. The letter also asked for revised plans that drop the JADUs, add units to reach 30 units per acre, and designate new affordable units.

The developer's 24-page appeal tells a very different story. It says the city's own 2021–2029 Housing Element designated this parcel as a candidate site for meeting the state's RHNA housing quota, inside area MU36, whose Housing Overlay allows a minimum density of 20 units per acre. The appeal alleges that in mid-2025, while the developer was in fee discussions with the city, Westminster issued an emergency moratorium (August 13, 2025) and then Urgency Ordinance 2625U (September 10, 2025), raising minimum density from 20 to 30 units per acre — moves the developer says were aimed at defeating this very project's vesting rights under SB 330, in violation of the Housing Crisis Act, because the city never sought sign-off from California's Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The appeal devotes an entire section to accusing the city of acting in "bad faith," citing what it describes as the Planning Division's inconsistent, shifting interpretations.

One striking detail in the appeal: it cites minutes from August 20, 2025 — attached to the appeal as an exhibit — showing that the Planning Commission itself, the very body that voted on August 19, had voted 5–0 to recommend that the City Council not adopt the density-raising ordinance. The Council adopted it anyway.

Per draft Resolution 26-008, the developer sued the city in Orange County Superior Court on or about May 29, 2026, restating part of the appeal's claims. Also per the draft resolution, on August 11, 2026, city staff and the City Attorney's office held a call with HCD about how the Housing Crisis Act applies to the ordinances; HCD has not yet weighed in.

Staff's position going into the hearing: most of the appeal's issues — the validity of Ordinance 2625U, whether the project counts as "multi-family" or "single-family," whether JADUs can serve as affordable units — are legal questions beyond the Planning Commission's authority and best left to the court. Staff therefore recommends denying the appeal and upholding the Community Development Director's decision. The draft resolution also rejects the sharpest charge outright, stating that the City "did not act in bad faith or violate the Applicant's due process rights in adopting the Urgency Ordinance."

The 5–0 vote on August 19 does not close the matter. The core question — can a city tighten density rules while an application is in progress — sits in Orange County Superior Court, where the developer's lawsuit is pending. Before the commission, the developer's representative Eric Higuchi laid out two scenarios: if the court rules for them, the 68-townhome project proceeds, delayed, with the city paying attorneys' fees; if the court rules for the city, they come back with a rental project of at least 200 units, four to five stories tall, possibly 100% affordable. He said he did not mean it as a threat but as "the realities we face at the state law level."

What's next? The commission's decision takes effect 15 days after the date on the notice of decision. Within those 15 days, the developer or any interested party may file a written appeal to the City Council through the City Clerk. To follow along, check the Westminster City Council agendas (meetings on the second and fourth Wednesdays, 6 PM, 8200 Westminster Blvd) or call the Planning Division at (714) 548-⁠3247.