Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Density topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Placentia planning panel recommends denying request to lower minimum density at Orangethorpe site
Summary
At a public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended against adopting ZCA 2024-01, a zoning text amendment that would cut Parcel 9's minimum residential density from 65 to 15 dwelling units per acre at 776 South Placentia / 777 W. Orangethorpe; the decision will be forwarded to city council and the applicant can appeal within 10 days.
The Placentia Planning Commission on March 11 recommended that staff not adopt zoning code amendment PC-2025-01 (ZCA 2024-01), a proposal to change Specific Plan 5 so Parcel 9’s minimum residential density would drop from 65 dwelling units per acre to 15 units per acre.
Planning staff presented the request as a text amendment to municipal code section 23.105.0.050, telling the commission the applicant sought “changing that minimum density from 65 dwelling units per acre to 15 dwelling units per acre.” Staff noted the council approved the mixed‑use project in September 2024 and that any change to the approved project would require a reapplication and additional council review.
During public comment, resident Craig Green urged the commission to table the item and said the prior council vote to convert the old Jeep dealership site from commercial to residential had been a fiscal mistake; he asked for more specificity from the developer on safety, parking and access. As one speaker said, “I would like to recommend that this, commission table this item, this project until such time as the developer can provide this body with enough real information with which the body can make a totally informed decision and recommendation to the city council.” Another neighbor, Joe Queen, urged cleanup of graffiti and trash at the site and questioned whether ground‑floor retail would be filled.
The applicant — described in the staff report as Mr. Ganesh and speaking at the dais — told the commission that no project revisions had been submitted and that the text amendment was intended as a flexibility measure coordinated with staff. “So tonight, all that's being brought before you is just that one text change and nothing else,” the applicant said.
After discussion about housing goals, consistency and a noted discrepancy in packet language between an 'up to 248 units' figure and the '95 units per acre' maximum, a motion was made "not to accept the report and not to adopt PC‑2025‑01." The roll call showed Commissioners Evans and Ingalls absent; the recorded votes on the motion were three in favor and one opposed (Commissioner Guerrero voted no). Planning staff said the commission’s action will be forwarded to city council and that the applicant has 10 days to file a written appeal.
The matter will proceed to the city council as the next step in the code‑amendment process.
