Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Conflict Of Interest topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents demand investigation into possible conflicts over 777 Orangethorpe development

Placentia City Council · September 17, 2024
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

Public commenters at the Sept. 17 Placentia council meeting urged an investigation into potential conflicts of interest tied to the 777 Orangethorpe Avenue project and asked the council to review emails and other records before proceeding.

Public commenters pressed the Placentia City Council on Sept. 17 to investigate possible conflicts of interest tied to the 777 Orangethorpe Avenue development, saying records and emails suggest relationships between local developers and city actors that could have affected recent council action.

“Mr. Rankine... has a working relationship with Peter Whittingham,” said Jeff Buchanan, who told the council he had obtained emails and a city-clerk statement he believes show connections that should have required recusal. Several speakers, including Craig Green, noted that the planning commission and city public-safety departments had recommended denial of the plan and questioned why the council voted to proceed after a meeting that ran past midnight on Sept. 3.

The clerk read an emailed public comment that urged a special counsel or independent investigation before the council moves forward with rezoning or approvals. Council discussion earlier in the meeting included a report that a fraud-hotline allegation related to the project had been received after the agenda was posted; the council voted to walk that complaint onto the closed-session agenda to be discussed under Government Code provisions covering litigation.

Why it matters: Commenters warned that perceived irregularities could erode public trust and set a precedent for special treatment of developers. Council members and staff did not take a final public vote on the allegation at the Sept. 17 meeting; instead, the item was added to closed session for further legal review.

What's next: The council added the fraud-hotline complaint to closed session under Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1) for discussion with legal counsel. The public urged the council to commission an independent review; the council has not publicly adopted that step as of the end of the Sept. 17 meeting.