Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Perris council unanimously denies request to change LCAD 17005 from low- to medium-density
Summary
On Jan. 28, 2026, the Perris City Council voted 6-0 to deny a petition to amend the comprehensive plan for LCAD 17005 from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential after planning staff and neighbors cited drainage, sewer easement and street-width concerns; the applicant proposed four triplexes (12 units) as infill.
The Perris City Council voted unanimously, 6-0, on Jan. 28 to deny a petition by Zachary Bergenholtz to amend the city’s future land-use map for LCAD 17005 from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR).
Planning department staff told the council the Planning & Zoning Commission had reviewed the application and recommended denial, saying the request is inconsistent with the current future land-use map and that the property’s current zoning (2F) and surrounding infrastructure make an increase in density inappropriate. Planning staff told the council they “also recommend a denial of this application.”
Neighbors and a nearby property owner raised similar concerns during the public hearing. Michael Lipscomb, who identified himself as a longtime resident and neighbor, said drainage, sewer easements and on-street parking were ongoing problems and argued the streets and existing utilities cannot support more residents.
Andrew Mack, the planning consultant representing the applicant, said the site is suitable for infill housing and described a proposal of four triplexes—“4 triplexes is 12 doors”—designed to look like single-family homes. Mack said the project would include about $2,200,000 in housing improvements and that developers would address drainage and other infrastructure through required improvements. Mack also noted that current zoning allows duplexes, and that differences in local definitions for duplex/triplex affect what can be built under existing rules.
Council members repeatedly focused on infrastructure: one councilmember cited street width and condition as a central concern, and staff noted that to overturn the Planning & Zoning denial the council would need six affirmative votes. A councilmember moved to accept Planning & Zoning’s recommendation; the motion was seconded and carried 6-0, denying the proposed comprehensive-plan amendment.
The council’s action leaves the property under its present land-use designation and zoning; staff and the applicant may return with different, conforming proposals in the future.
