Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission recommends council approve 86‑room Tru by Hilton and DDA despite neighbor parking objections

Placentia Planning Commission · November 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission voted 3–2 to recommend City Council approval of an 86‑room Tru by Hilton, including a DDA to convey roughly 6,358 sq ft of city right‑of‑way and conditions requiring 24/7 valet service to address limited on‑site parking; nearby property owners objected, citing parking, staging and industrial‑use impacts.

The Placentia Planning Commission on a 3–2 vote recommended that the City Council approve a proposed four‑story, 86‑room Tru by Hilton hotel (DPR 2025‑01; UP 2025‑02) and an associated disposition and development agreement (DDA) to convey approximately 6,358 square feet of city right‑of‑way at 450 South Placentia Avenue.

Staff said the hotel would total about 42,631 square feet, provide 82 parking spaces split between a subterranean garage and at‑grade stalls, and include on‑site amenities such as a rooftop deck, fitness center and guest lounge. Staff also recommended finding the project exempt from CEQA under the Class 32 infill exemption and noted that transfer of city property under the DDA would occur only once the project is permit‑ready.

A central concern during deliberations was parking sufficiency and spillover onto Industrial Way. Staff and the applicant proposed a required valet program as part of the approval; staff told the commission that the resolution would bind the operator to a valet program and that failure to operate the valet service would reduce the number of rooms the project could legally rent (staff explained the condition limits operating capacity if valet service is suspended). Commissioner questions focused on whether a valet fee or free valet offering would affect on‑street parking behavior, how staging and construction access would be managed, and emergency access for fire apparatus.

Richard Price, attorney for neighboring property owners, urged the commission to reject the recommendation, arguing the site is undersized for the scale proposed, that setbacks had been reduced from code standards and that parking and loading would spill onto Industrial Way and impair adjacent industrial tenants. Price said neighbors received large technical packets late in the process and asked for more time to review the materials.

Andrew (staff lead) said the DDA includes performance milestones and that the city would not convey property until the project is permit‑ready. He also said Republic Services and the city’s fire life‑safety review had accepted operational means and methods for trash and emergency access.

Commissioner Smith moved to recommend approval; the motion passed on roll call (Yes: Commissioner Smith, Vice Chair Rock, Chair Perez; No: Commissioner Evans, Commissioner Navarro; Commissioner Guerrero absent). The commission’s action is a recommendation to City Council; staff said the item is expected to appear on a forthcoming Council agenda and that the applicant has the right to appeal the commission decision to the Council within 10 days.