[0:49] The Planning Commission meeting

[0:54] of AUGUST 26th, 26, 2026 will

[0:55] come to order. Ladies and

[0:57] gentlemen, please rise and face

[0:58] the flag for the Pledge of

[1:00] Allegiance. Please remove your

[1:01] hats for head coverings.

[1:02] Civilians, please place your

[1:04] hand over your heart. Veterans

[1:05] and active military duty

[1:06] personnel not in uniform MAY

[1:09] render military Hanssler ready

[1:10] again..

[1:12] I pledge allegiance to the the

[1:14] line of the United States of

[1:17] America and to the Republic for

[1:19] which it stands. One nation

[1:22] under GOD, indivisible, with

[1:24] liberty and justice for all.

[1:30] Thank you. Uh, the Secretary

[1:32] will call roll.

[1:33] Commissioner Mann.

[1:34] Present.

[1:36] Commissioner Tolson here.

[1:38] Commissioner Christmann here.

[1:40] Vice chairperson. Rice here.

[1:41] Chairperson.

[1:43] Kennedy here.

[1:49] Here. There it is. Uh, MAY I

[1:51] have a motion for approval of

[1:55] the agenda? I move.

[1:56] To approve the agenda as

[1:58] presented.

[1:58] I

[2:00] ll second it.

[2:01] Unless there are any

[2:03] objections. The agenda stands

[2:07] approved. Approval of the

[2:09] minutes. Uh, there are no

[2:10] minutes to approve. That

[2:11] s a

[2:13] good quick one. Declaration of

[2:14] conflict. The Secretary will

[2:15] read the declaration of

[2:17] conflict.

[2:18] If any member of the Planning

[2:20] Commission MAY have a conflict

[2:22] of interest, or any reason why

[2:24] that member should abstain from

[2:26] consideration of any matter on

[2:28] this agenda, he or she should

[2:36] so declare at this time.

[2:40] Seeing none, we continue on.

[2:42] This is the time allotted for

[2:43] public statements or comments

[2:45] on all items other than the

[2:47] public hearing items. Is there

[2:48] one anyone in the chamber

[2:57] wishing to be heard? Okay, next

[2:59] item correspondence. Is there

[3:00] any correspondence from the

[3:02] Deputy Director City planner?

[3:03] Uh, yes. Chairperson. Kennedy.

[3:06] We have one, uh, supplemental

[3:07] staff report for agenda.

[3:11] Item ten a1 regarding a

[3:12] correspondence received on the

[3:14] North Canyons uh, development

[3:15] project that

[3:17] s been provided to

[3:18] you, posted on the website, and

[3:20] copies were placed out in the

[3:24] lobby.

[3:25] Okay. Next item is consent

[3:27] calendar. There are no consent

[3:30] calendar items. Next item.

[3:33] Continued business. This is the

[3:34] time and place set for a

[3:36] continued public hearing on the

[3:41] consideration of annex 0077

[3:51] gpa. Dash 0073 z s 0613 pd s

[3:59] 1054 t 5658-a. D a dash

[4:10] 20260001 and annex 20240001 and

[4:14] z dash s 2024. And the

[4:17] Environmental Impact Report eir

[4:19] and mitigation, Monitoring and

[4:23] Reporting Program. Therefore,

[4:24] are there any ex-parte

[4:29] communications to report?

[4:29] Go.

[4:31] First I had a meeting with a

[4:34] developer and um, we had a

[4:35] conversation about the project.

[4:37] I also talked to uh, or

[4:38] listened to a couple of

[4:40] residents that live in

[4:42] unincorporated areas of

[4:43] different, different

[4:46] unincorporated areas.

[4:48] i also had a zoom meeting with

[4:50] the developer and the discuss

[4:54] the project.

[4:56] Uh, I had a meeting with a

[4:58] developer as well via zoom.

[5:00] I had a scheduled meeting with

[5:01] the developer, but that got

[5:02] canceled because of a family

[5:05] emergency. So.

[5:06] Along those same lines, I was

[5:07] out of state on vacation and

[5:09] had a zoom meeting with the

[5:12] developer. And, uh, MR. Becerra

[5:20] was on that call as well. Next

[5:21] item. MAY we have an oral

[5:26] report by staff on this matter?

[5:27] Uh, yes. Good evening,

[5:28] Chairperson Kennedy. Members of

[5:30] the Planning Commission. Yes.

[5:32] This is a continued public

[5:34] hearing on the North Canyon

[5:36] Ranch development application.

[5:39] And, uh, associated

[5:41] entitlements, including the

[5:43] proposed annexation of that

[5:45] site and the discussion on the

[5:47] related island annexations.

[5:50] This was continued from 2025.

[5:50] And tonight

[5:52] s item is a

[5:53] planning Commission hearing.

[5:54] And this would be a

[5:55] recommendation on the action to

[6:01] the city council. Any, um, any

[6:02] final approval of the project

[6:05] does not occur tonight. And

[6:06] this process would be gone

[6:07] through again at the city

[6:09] council level. So just to let

[6:11] everyone in the audience know

[6:12] that this there

[6:12] s no final

[6:14] action tonight. If this does

[6:15] move forward to the City

[6:17] council, uh, proper public

[6:19] noticing will also occur when

[6:21] that date is scheduled. So I

[6:21] ll

[6:23] turn it over the presentation

[6:25] to Senior Planner Elizabeth

[6:30] Richardson.

[6:32] Okay. Good evening. Tonight we

[6:34] will be reviewing the proposed

[6:35] North Canyon Ranch in

[6:38] annexation for a new 207 unit

[6:41] subdivision. There are three

[6:42] components of the project being

[6:44] reviewed tonight. The North

[6:45] Canyon Ranch subdivision,

[6:47] annexation of the North Canyon

[6:49] Ranch site into the city

[6:51] limits, and the annexation of

[6:52] seven of the nine county

[6:54] islands. We will review each of

[6:55] these further in tonight

[6:56] s

[7:00] presentation. The North Canyon

[7:03] Ranch Project site is project

[7:05] is a request to subdivide a 160

[7:08] acre site for 207 unit

[7:10] subdivision consisting of 157

[7:13] single family residences, 50

[7:15] multifamily units and open

[7:17] space. The proposal requires a

[7:19] general plan Amendment three

[7:21] zone plan development permit,

[7:23] tentative map, and a

[7:24] development agreement.

[7:25] Tonight

[7:26] s review will only be

[7:28] for the overall site layout,

[7:30] building designs of the homes,

[7:32] landscaping, site improvements

[7:34] and retaining wall design will

[7:35] be reviewed under a future plan

[7:37] development permit modification.

[7:42] North Canyon Ranch was first

[7:43] scheduled for a public hearing

[7:46] on JANUARY 8th, 2025. However,

[7:48] due to a lack of a quorum, the

[7:49] project was continued to

[7:52] JANUARY 22nd, 2025. On JANUARY

[7:54] 22nd, the public hearing was

[7:56] opened and four members of the

[7:58] public spoke. The meeting was

[8:00] continued again to allow staff

[8:01] additional time to study the

[8:03] fiscal impacts of the project

[8:05] and negotiate a development

[8:07] agreement. The project tonight

[8:10] was noticed for public hearing

[8:11] by placing a public hearing

[8:13] notice signs at First Street

[8:15] and Falcon Drive, running a

[8:16] public hearing notice ad in the

[8:19] newspaper, mailing postcards to

[8:20] property owners in a 300 foot

[8:22] radius of the North Canyon

[8:24] Ranch project, and to property

[8:25] owners in the seven affected

[8:28] county islands. Noticing was

[8:29] completed 20 days in advance of

[8:30] tonight

[8:31] s meeting to comply

[8:33] with state law requiring 20 day

[8:34] notice for projects with a zone

[8:39] change. The project is located

[8:41] north of the Simi Valley town

[8:42] center, between First Street

[8:44] and the intersection of Erin jr

[8:46] Road and Falcon Street, and is

[8:47] located outside the city

[8:49] limits, but is within the

[8:50] sphere of influence and the

[8:51] city urban Restriction

[8:53] boundary, also known as the

[8:55] curb. The site is currently

[8:57] vacant and portions of the site

[8:58] have been previously disturbed

[9:00] with grading, unimproved dirt

[9:02] roads and placement of dirt

[9:03] from the Simi Valley town

[9:06] center. Construction. Existing

[9:07] vegetation consists of coastal

[9:09] sage scrub, small patches of

[9:13] cactus, highly disturbed

[9:15] non-native grass habitats, and

[9:17] riparian scrub. In some

[9:18] locations along the drainage

[9:21] courses and debris basins. The

[9:22] tree report for the project

[9:24] identified 16 trees on the

[9:26] property and most of the

[9:28] natural habitat on the site was

[9:29] disturbed by the domestic

[9:33] animal grazing activities. This

[9:34] is a view of the project site

[9:35] from the end of Falcon Street,

[9:39] looking west, and this is a

[9:40] view of the site from the end

[9:41] of First Street looking

[9:45] northeast. The city

[9:46] s general

[9:48] plan has designated. The North

[9:49] Canyon site as medium density

[9:51] residential. Moderate density

[9:54] residential and open space. In

[9:55] 2005, a general plan

[9:57] pre-screened was reviewed by

[9:58] the City Council and granted

[10:00] authorization to proceed with

[10:01] an application for a General

[10:03] Plan amendment. The proposed

[10:05] General Plan Amendment will not

[10:06] change the existing land use

[10:08] designations, but will instead

[10:09] redistribute them to follow the

[10:10] boundary of the proposed

[10:12] development. Single family

[10:14] residential will be located in

[10:16] the medium density residential,

[10:18] land use and multifamily

[10:19] residential units will be in

[10:21] the moderate density.

[10:26] Residential land use. The North

[10:27] Canyon Project site is

[10:28] currently zoned County Open

[10:30] Space. As part of the

[10:32] annexation, the city will zone

[10:33] the project site to residential

[10:35] medium and residential moderate

[10:37] density and open space.

[10:39] Consistent with the project

[10:41] layout, the residential medium

[10:43] zone allows single family

[10:45] residences, while the

[10:46] residential moderate zone

[10:47] allows both single family and

[10:49] multifamily residential

[10:51] development for the North

[10:52] Canyon Ranch project, the

[10:53] single family homes will be

[10:54] located in the residential

[10:55] medium zone, and the

[10:57] multifamily residential will be

[10:58] located in the Residential

[11:05] Moderate zone. The project site

[11:06] is proposed to be subdivided

[11:08] into 157 single family

[11:10] residential lots and 50

[11:12] multi-family residential units.

[11:14] The multifamily residential

[11:15] will either be senior housing

[11:17] or 25% affordable per the

[11:19] conditions. Proposed

[11:20] development will disturb

[11:22] approximately 90 acres of the

[11:24] site to create lots ranging in

[11:26] size between 5000ft and

[11:33] 15,829ft in area. The project

[11:35] will extend Falcon Street from

[11:37] First Street to r&r road and

[11:38] the General Plan Mobility

[11:39] section has identified this

[11:41] connection as an unbuilt minor

[11:43] arterial roadway, and by

[11:44] connecting the road, the

[11:45] project further complies with

[11:50] the General Plan. Two new one

[11:51] acre parks will also be

[11:52] included in the site identified

[11:54] here on the map, and site

[11:56] greeting will not result in

[11:58] soil being impacted. The

[11:59] remainder of the site will

[12:04] remain dedicated. Open space.

[12:05] The project site will be

[12:06] located within the Hillside

[12:08] Performance Standards or Https

[12:09] boundary. The purpose of the

[12:11] house is to preserve the

[12:13] hillside areas, promote single

[12:14] family housing in the hillside

[12:17] and slope areas. Less than 20%

[12:19] maintain open space and scenic

[12:21] resources and prohibit most

[12:23] grading on slopes over 20%.

[12:24] Residential density for

[12:26] projects in the house is not

[12:28] calculated using the underlying

[12:30] zoning, and is instead based on

[12:32] slope density using the

[12:33] steepness of the land where the

[12:35] development is proposed to

[12:36] calculate the allowed number of

[12:41] units. On this map, the area

[12:42] where slopes range between 0

[12:44] and 20% are shown in green,

[12:46] purple and red colors, and the

[12:48] area that is gray or slopes

[12:51] over 20%. Based on the analysis

[12:52] of the slope map, the project

[12:57] can accommodate the 207 units.

[12:59] The project site is located

[13:00] within the state and Ventura

[13:02] County Fire Department

[13:02] s very

[13:04] high fire hazard zone.

[13:05] Development of the site

[13:06] requires the fire department

[13:07] s

[13:08] approval of site plans for fire

[13:10] protection features, including

[13:13] adequate fire apparatus access,

[13:14] roadway widths, turnaround

[13:16] areas, placement of fire

[13:18] hydrants, installation of the

[13:19] fire sprinklers inside the

[13:21] houses, and establishment of

[13:22] fuel modification zones for

[13:24] brush clearance. The fire

[13:25] department has reviewed the

[13:27] tentative map for fire safety

[13:28] to ensure it conforms with the

[13:30] applicable codes, and the map

[13:32] was modified in response to

[13:34] fire Department comments,

[13:37] including removal of two lots,

[13:38] a fire protection plan and fuel

[13:40] modification plan has

[13:43] preliminary been reviewed and

[13:44] approved by the fire

[13:46] Department. Together, they are

[13:47] designed to minimize fire

[13:48] hazards and risks that MAY

[13:50] threaten life and property in

[13:51] the future. The fire department

[13:53] will also review the final

[13:54] landscaping plans to ensure

[13:56] that all plant materials comply

[13:57] with the fire department

[14:01] regulations. A unique design

[14:03] feature of the project is a 60

[14:06] foot high wall retaining wall.

[14:07] The wall is proposed to be

[14:09] located on the southwest area

[14:10] of the site, adjacent to the

[14:12] First Street extension. The

[14:14] wall will be stepped, with two

[14:15] different sections being 30ft

[14:18] tall and a ten foot wide step

[14:20] for drainage and landscaping.

[14:21] The purpose of the wall is to

[14:23] hold back the slope created by

[14:24] cutting in the First Street

[14:26] extension. The wall is a

[14:28] notable feature of the project.

[14:30] However, the design the design

[14:31] still requires final

[14:32] engineering design and

[14:34] approval. Staff has discussed

[14:35] with the applicant

[14:37] opportunities to obtain an

[14:38] easement with the adjacent

[14:39] property owner, which could

[14:40] result in a design that would

[14:41] not require such a tall

[14:47] retaining wall. To develop the

[14:49] North Canyon Ranch site. The

[14:51] 160 acre property and seven of

[14:53] the nine county islands must be

[14:54] annexed into the city limits by

[14:57] Ventura Lafco. Annexation of

[14:58] the North Canyon site is

[15:00] required because the site is

[15:02] larger than 40 acres, and by

[15:04] annexing North Canyon Ranch,

[15:06] Lafco policy also requires the

[15:07] annexation of seven of the nine

[15:12] county islands. The acronym

[15:14] Lafco stands for stands for

[15:15] Local Agency Formation

[15:17] Commission, and is a state

[15:19] agency that has the sole

[15:20] authority over changes to the

[15:21] city boundaries and special

[15:25] districts. Lafco to discourage

[15:26] sprawl and encourage orderly

[15:28] development and establish the

[15:29] sphere of influence for each

[15:34] city or agency. To initiate the

[15:35] annexation of North Canyon

[15:35] s

[15:37] ranch. The City Council must

[15:38] first recommend the city file

[15:41] an application with Lafco.

[15:43] Next, the city will formally

[15:44] apply for annexation of the

[15:46] North Canyon Ranch project site

[15:48] with Lafco, and then they will

[15:50] review the application at a

[15:53] public hearing, where the board

[15:54] will either approve or deny the

[15:59] annexation request. In 2000,

[16:00] the California State

[16:02] Legislature significantly

[16:04] changed Lafco policy as part of

[16:05] the local Government

[16:08] Reorganization Act of 2000. As

[16:10] part of this new policy, the

[16:12] state legislature added a

[16:13] requirement for cities to annex

[16:16] county islands and removing

[16:18] Lafco discretion. Ventura Lafco

[16:20] adopted their island annexation

[16:23] policy in 2003 and requires

[16:25] when cities annex sites larger

[16:27] than 40 acres, the islands be

[16:30] annexed as well. The island

[16:31] annexation application will be

[16:33] submitted to Lafco after the

[16:35] North Canyon Ranch annexation

[16:35] is approved.

[16:37] Elizabeth. Sorry for

[16:39] interrupting. We appear to have

[16:42] technical difficulties with

[16:43] regard to the live stream. Is

[16:45] that accurate?

[16:45] I mean, it

[16:46] s everything on my

[16:48] end, although I.

[16:48] We

[16:49] ll take a brief pause.

[16:51] If we could take a ten minute

[16:53] pause to see if we can rectify

[16:54] that. I apologize for

[16:59] interrupting.

[21:15] The video on YouTube.

[21:16] MR. CHAIRMAN, members of the

[21:18] commission. I think we have a

[21:20] Granicus live stream. It

[21:21] appears there

[21:21] s a technical

[21:23] difficulty with YouTube itself.

[21:25] As long as we have a live feed

[21:26] through the city

[21:27] s website or

[21:28] get to move forward, it

[21:29] s

[21:30] obviously up to the commission.

[21:31] If you want to move forward. My

[21:32] suggestion would be the backup

[21:33] for five minutes in your

[21:35] presentation and repeat that

[21:36] part of it so that at least we

[21:38] have that going out. Um, but

[21:38] I

[21:39] m happy to answer any

[21:44] questions or.

[21:44] I

[21:45] m on the website. Just go to

[21:46] the Planning Commission. I

[21:46] m

[21:48] looking at the website. Okay.

[21:49] So your voice just came through

[21:50] on spectrum.

[21:53] Okay. Great. So you

[21:53] re you

[21:54] re

[21:55] clear to move forward if you if

[21:56] you so desire.

[21:58] Yeah I concur. Uh, shall we

[21:59] back up five minutes in that

[22:00] presentation just to make sure

[22:01] that we

[22:02] re covered?

[22:02] Yeah, I

[22:03] m going to pick up

[22:04] where we start with the

[22:05] annexation. Okay. Does that

[22:06] sound good?

[22:07] Yeah. Annexation. That

[22:07] s good.

[22:10] Break point.

[22:11] I guess.

[22:15] Okay.

[22:17] Yeah. We still need our video

[22:21] feed on the screens here.

[22:26] No, no. Yes.

[22:27] Sorry.

[22:29] Okay. So, yeah, you are coming

[22:30] through on spectrum because I

[22:31] just read your voice through

[22:33] the tv up by my house. So

[22:37] spectrum is working. Yeah. Here

[22:38] we go. Live again. All the

[22:39] life. Okay. Granicus is working

[22:40] or not?

[22:41] All right. Can we get our

[22:42] screens back up here at the

[23:01] dais there on. Still in recess.

[23:03] Hey, the good news is the air

[23:05] conditioning is working right?

[23:09] Yeah.

[23:18] Right.

[23:18] That

[23:31] s.

[23:49] So as we see ourself.

[23:52] Okay, okay.

[23:53] It looks like the reboot has

[23:54] occurred. So we

[23:55] re going to go

[23:56] ahead and pick this back up at

[24:02] the annexation slide.

[24:03] I just said it

[24:04] s not showing up

[24:04] on.

[24:05] Granicus..

[24:09] So things.

[24:11] Yeah yeah we gotta reboot up

[24:15] here.

[24:15] Can here. But it

[24:16] s still saying

[24:22] recess.

[24:23] All right. We

[24:23] re good.

[24:27] To me. Okay. Okay. You ready?

[24:28] Okay.

[24:28] Okay. Looks like we

[24:29] re on a

[24:29] restart. We

[24:30] re going to kick it

[24:32] back to the slide with the

[24:33] annexation and go forward from

[24:38] there. Thank you all.

[24:42] Up. Now, on that one right

[24:42] there.

[24:44] Excellent. Okay.

[24:47] Thank you. Everybody.

[24:48] Okay.

[24:50] To develop the North Canyon

[24:52] Ranch site, the property and

[24:53] seven of the county islands

[24:55] must be annexed into the city

[24:57] limits by Ventura Lafco

[24:59] annexation of the of the North

[25:00] Canyon site is required because

[25:02] the site is larger than 40

[25:04] acres. And by annexing North

[25:06] Canyons Ranch. Lafco policy

[25:07] also requires annexation of

[25:08] seven of the nine county

[25:13] islands. The acronym Lafco

[25:15] stands for Local Area Formation

[25:18] Commission. Local Agency

[25:19] Formation Commission, and is a

[25:21] state agency that has a sole

[25:23] authority over changes to city

[25:24] boundaries and special

[25:26] districts. Lafco is discourage

[25:28] sprawl and encourage orderly

[25:29] development and establish the

[25:31] sphere of influence for each

[25:35] city or agency to initiate the

[25:36] annexation of North Canyon

[25:38] Ranch. The City Council must

[25:39] first recommend the city file

[25:41] an application with Lafco.

[25:43] Next, the city will formally

[25:44] apply for annexation of the

[25:47] North Canyon Ranch project site,

[25:49] and then Lafco will review. The

[25:50] will then review the

[25:52] application, and at a public

[25:53] hearing, the board will either

[25:54] approve or deny the annexation

[25:59] request. In 2000, the

[26:00] California State Legislature

[26:02] significantly changed Lafco

[26:04] policy as part of the Local

[26:06] Government Reorganization Act

[26:08] of 2000. As part of this new

[26:10] policy, the state legislature

[26:11] added a requirement for cities

[26:14] to annex county islands and

[26:16] removed Lafco discretion.

[26:18] Ventura Lafco adopted their

[26:19] island annexation policy in

[26:22] 2003, and requires when cities

[26:23] annex sites larger than 40

[26:25] acres, the islands be annexed

[26:27] as well. The island annexation

[26:29] application will be submitted

[26:30] to Lafco after the North Canyon

[26:34] Ranch annexation is approved.

[26:36] This map shows the location of

[26:37] the seven county islands to be

[26:39] annexed. County Islands six and

[26:41] nine are crossed out and are

[26:42] not part of the of this

[26:45] application. Due to their size

[26:47] in the future, these count

[26:48] these county islands six and

[26:50] nine could seek annexation

[26:51] individually for future

[26:53] development projects. A total

[26:56] of 437 lots will be annexed,

[26:57] with a total area of

[26:59] approximately 302 acres.

[27:01] Existing uses in the annexation

[27:03] areas are primarily single

[27:07] family residential.

[27:08] Unincorporated county. Island

[27:09] properties are zoned in

[27:11] anticipation of being annexed

[27:13] into the city. County. Island

[27:15] eight. The Sinaloa Lake area,

[27:16] however, was not pre zoned

[27:18] previously. The pre zoning

[27:19] considers the existing

[27:21] activities of the site that are

[27:22] both residential and open

[27:24] space, as well as animal

[27:26] keeping activities. Island

[27:28] eight will be pre zoned to

[27:29] residential estate with farm

[27:32] animal overlay, residential

[27:34] very low, residential low and

[27:36] open space. The farm Animal

[27:38] overlay will continue to allow

[27:40] the animal raising activities

[27:43] allowed by the county. After

[27:45] the county Islands are annexed

[27:46] into the city. Residents will

[27:48] experience some changes to the

[27:49] services they currently

[27:51] receive. Law enforcement will

[27:53] transfer from Ventura County

[27:53] Sheriff

[27:54] s Department to Simi

[27:57] Valley Police Department.

[27:58] Building permits will be

[27:59] reviewed and issued by the City

[28:01] of Simi Valley, and code

[28:03] enforcement will be transferred

[28:04] to the City of Simi Valley as

[28:06] well. However, some services

[28:07] won

[28:08] t change. Ventura County

[28:10] Fire Department will continue

[28:12] to respond to calls. Waterworks

[28:14] district eight will continue to

[28:16] provide water. If your property

[28:18] is currently on septic, the

[28:20] city will not require you to

[28:21] connect to city sewer until

[28:24] there is a health safety issue

[28:26] or a resident builds a new

[28:28] single family residence, sb9

[28:31] unit or an Adu. Preexisting

[28:32] permitted uses allowed by the

[28:34] county will continue to be

[28:35] allowed, including animal

[28:39] keeping. The project was

[28:41] continued in 2025 because of

[28:43] concerns related to the

[28:45] financial impacts of annexing

[28:46] the county islands into the

[28:48] city. A fiscal impact analysis

[28:50] was prepared for the annexation

[28:52] and found without the North

[28:54] Canyon Ranch development, the

[28:55] county islands will generate an

[28:59] annual deficit of $142,000.

[29:00] This will eventually be offset

[29:01] by North Canyon Ranch

[29:02] development, which will

[29:04] generate an annual surplus of

[29:08] $1,229 per residence. The city

[29:10] and developer have negotiated a

[29:11] development agreement to offset

[29:15] the deficit. The development

[29:17] agreement offsetting the

[29:18] deficit generated by the island

[29:20] annexation with payment of

[29:26] $141,884 annually. Once, once.

[29:30] North Kane is once annexed

[29:31] until North Kane

[29:32] s is fully

[29:34] developed. The developer will

[29:35] also provide public benefits,

[29:36] including the extension of

[29:38] Falcon Street, constructing a

[29:40] fire access road, dedicating

[29:42] land for public trails, and

[29:45] paying $150,000 each to the

[29:46] public arts program and the

[29:50] library building improvements.

[29:53] At the JANUARY 22nd Planning

[29:54] Commission meeting, the public

[29:56] comments asked the following

[29:58] questions. As we discussed.

[30:00] Lafco policy requires island

[30:02] annexation of North Canyon

[30:04] Ranch. Annexation is approved

[30:06] and a fiscal impact analysis

[30:07] was prepared to study the

[30:08] fiscal, the financial impacts

[30:11] of island annexation. The

[30:12] annexed homes will not count

[30:13] towards the city

[30:14] s arena. Water

[30:15] for the project will be

[30:17] supplied by Waterworks District

[30:19] eight, who have stated that

[30:21] 5.6% of the city

[30:22] s water

[30:24] surplus will be used by the

[30:27] development. The eir identified

[30:28] potential bus stops on Falcon

[30:30] Street, which will be further

[30:31] studied and determined if

[30:32] necessary as a project

[30:35] progresses. No traffic calming

[30:37] devices will be installed on

[30:39] Milestone Avenue in response to

[30:41] North Canyon Ranch development,

[30:43] and Milestone Avenue is a

[30:44] public street, and in order to

[30:46] install gates, the streets

[30:47] would have to be abandoned and

[30:52] privatized. In eir was prepared

[30:53] for the project, which studied

[30:55] both the North Canyon Ranch and

[30:57] the island. Annexation. The

[30:59] purpose of the of an eir is to

[31:00] disclose the potential

[31:01] environmental impacts of the

[31:03] project. All feasible

[31:04] mitigation measures that could

[31:06] reduce, that could reduce or

[31:09] eliminate those impacts, and

[31:10] suggest and investigate

[31:12] alternatives to the project,

[31:13] which MAY be environmentally

[31:14] superior to the project. As

[31:17] proposed. The city determined

[31:18] the project MAY have a

[31:19] significant impact on the on

[31:21] the environment and prepared an

[31:23] eir. Mitigation measures are

[31:25] provided to lessen the impacts,

[31:26] to less than, less than

[31:28] significant, and are contained

[31:29] in the mitigation, monitoring

[31:32] and Reporting Program. Our

[31:33] Sequoia consultant, Laura

[31:35] Kaufman, is here tonight to

[31:36] answer questions regarding the

[31:38] eir process and mitigation

[31:43] measures. To approve the North

[31:45] Canyon Ranch Project. Findings

[31:46] must be made that the project

[31:47] is consistent with the General

[31:49] Plan and Simi Valley Municipal

[31:51] Code. There are no impacts to

[31:53] the public health, safety or

[31:55] welfare. The project is

[31:56] consistent with the Residential

[31:58] Design Guidelines Subdivision

[31:59] Map Act and Hillside

[32:01] Performance Standards. If the

[32:03] Planning Commission chooses to

[32:04] deny the project tonight, they

[32:06] must find the project is

[32:07] inconsistent with the findings

[32:11] contained in the resolution.

[32:12] And staff recommends the

[32:13] Planning Commission make a

[32:14] recommendation of approval to

[32:16] the City Council of the

[32:17] Annexation General Plan

[32:19] Amendment Zone Change Plan,

[32:20] development permit. Tentative

[32:22] map development Agreement and

[32:24] eir and the County Island

[32:26] Annexation and Free Zone. And

[32:27] this concludes my presentation

[32:27] and staff

[32:28] s available for

[32:31] questions.

[32:31] Uh.

[32:33] Any commissioner questions of

[32:42] staff?

[32:48] Thank you. Okay.

[32:48] I

[32:51] m gonna start. Um, can we

[32:53] explain a little bit more? What

[32:54] would be the financial impact

[32:56] on the city of the project was

[32:58] to be improved, approved. And

[32:59] if the developer doesn

[33:00] t start

[33:02] developing the project in a

[33:03] timely manner. But we already

[33:06] are in the process of annexing

[33:15] the unincorporated.

[33:17] So the fiscal impact analysis

[33:17] that

[33:19] s attached to the Da, um,

[33:22] it identified that the island

[33:23] annexations will cost the city

[33:26] $142,000. And based upon that

[33:31] number, the Da was negotiated

[33:36] requiring that. Until North

[33:37] Canyon Ranch is fully

[33:39] developed, the developer will

[33:41] be paying money into the city

[33:44] funds to offset that deficit

[33:46] incurred by annexing the

[33:48] islands.

[33:50] So what would be the timeline

[33:51] for the annexations? Like what?

[33:54] How would that happen if if we

[33:55] were to approve this, if the

[33:58] city Council was to approve.

[33:59] What the timeline would be to

[34:00] the island annexation?

[34:01] Yeah.

[34:03] Um, based upon the timeline

[34:06] with, um, with Lafco, it could,

[34:08] um, the North Canyon Ranch

[34:11] process could take

[34:13] approximately over a year. And

[34:14] then there

[34:16] s ways to extend it.

[34:16] There

[34:17] s time extensions that

[34:18] that can be granted before they

[34:21] have to annex the island.

[34:22] Annexations. It could be

[34:24] approximately five years before

[34:26] we annex the islands.

[34:27] Thank you. And if we were I

[34:27] m

[34:28] not saying that that

[34:29] s going to

[34:30] happen, but if we were to have

[34:32] a Runkle Canyon situation, what

[34:34] would be the long term effect

[34:36] to the city?

[34:37] You want to define.

[34:38] The.

[34:40] Rock Canyon situation?

[34:42] Oh, yes. Uh, yes. That is, uh,

[34:44] a 20 year delay with many

[34:47] extensions and not the project

[34:54] was not being finished. I asked

[34:54] a question.

[34:56] Can you help answer that.

[34:57] Question.

[34:58] MR. CHAIRMAN? Members of the

[35:01] commission. So this is a very

[35:03] different situation than a

[35:06] project that happened 20 years

[35:08] ago. Uh, what was built into

[35:09] the development agreement and

[35:11] the developers agreed to is to

[35:13] ensure that the city is

[35:14] protected and that we don

[35:14] t

[35:16] have a similar situation. The

[35:18] overall term of the Da is 15

[35:20] years. Uh, once building

[35:21] permits, start getting issued,

[35:21] there

[35:23] s a six month period

[35:25] within which building actually

[35:26] has to commence. After those

[35:28] building permits are issued,

[35:29] and failure to do so is a

[35:31] material breach of the actual

[35:32] development agreement, which

[35:33] means that

[35:33] s going to be in

[35:34] front of the City Council for

[35:37] review at that point. Uh, with

[35:39] regard to the financial aspects

[35:41] of things, the developer has

[35:43] agreed to provide a surety,

[35:44] meaning a bond or letter of

[35:46] credit, some other type, form

[35:48] of surety to make sure that the

[35:49] annexation happens in a timely

[35:50] manner. I

[35:53] ll say with regard to

[35:54] annexation in a timely manner,

[35:56] sir, I usually look at this

[36:00] way, but, uh, the, uh, lafco is

[36:02] actually required by state law

[36:04] to process the annexation

[36:06] application very quickly. This

[36:09] is a application process,

[36:10] annexation process whereby the

[36:12] city is actually asking for the

[36:13] annexation, which means that

[36:15] under state law, Lafco waives

[36:18] the protest proceedings, has to

[36:20] approve the project. And there

[36:23] are very few opportunities to

[36:25] stop the process for annexation

[36:27] under these circumstances. All

[36:29] of this to say that we took a

[36:31] lot of time to to negotiate the

[36:32] impact fee that

[36:33] s been

[36:34] described by staff and on your

[36:36] on your PowerPoint. And also

[36:36] it

[36:37] s built into the development

[36:39] agreement. So from a legal

[36:40] standpoint, I don

[36:41] t think that

[36:42] the concerns that have been

[36:43] raised about other projects

[36:44] within the city will be

[36:46] replicated. And certainly I

[36:49] know that the city council is,

[36:51] uh, well aware of of other

[36:54] issues with other developments.

[36:54] So I don

[36:55] t think that that is

[36:56] something that will happen.

[36:57] Again.

[36:58] Thank you. I was not saying

[36:58] it

[36:59] s going to happen. I was

[37:01] just making sure that we have a

[37:02] plan in place.

[37:03] Yes. And this development

[37:04] agreement is very different

[37:06] than any others that have come

[37:07] before, either the Planning

[37:08] Commission for recommendations

[37:09] to the City Council or for the

[37:13] City Council itself to consider.

[37:14] I have more questions, but if

[37:15] somebody else wants.

[37:19] To read Your Honor roll.

[37:20] I

[37:22] m on a roll. Um, I do, I do

[37:23] want to bring up the tough, uh,

[37:26] traffic question. Um, so, uh,

[37:28] my, my question and I did ask

[37:30] it before if this development

[37:31] was to be happening at the same

[37:34] time as the, uh, Lost Canyon

[37:37] development, what would be the

[37:39] traffic impact on, on that area?

[37:42] Thank you.

[37:43] We

[37:44] ll bring up Justin Link,

[37:52] principal traffic engineer.

[37:54] I apologize to anybody coming

[37:56] after me who has to go over

[37:56] this. Uh, good evening,

[37:58] commissioners. Uh, that is, uh,

[37:58] that

[38:00] s a tricky question to

[38:03] answer because our either the

[38:05] traffic study or traffic model

[38:05] doesn

[38:06] t necessarily take into

[38:08] account conflicting

[38:10] construction. It is possible, I

[38:12] suppose, that we can limit

[38:14] construction traffic to certain

[38:17] areas. So if North Canyons were

[38:18] to progress at the same time

[38:19] that we would limit

[38:20] construction traffic to, say,

[38:21] First Street, as opposed to

[38:22] using arranger, I don

[38:23] t suspect

[38:24] that there

[38:24] s going to be a lot

[38:26] of construction traffic using

[38:27] arranger from Lost Canyons

[38:29] because of the distance between

[38:30] them, so there shouldn

[38:31] t be too

[38:32] much interactivity. Again,

[38:32] that

[38:34] s pure speculation on my

[38:36] part, but there would be the

[38:37] potential. I would think that

[38:38] we could figure out a way with

[38:40] a developer to place the

[38:42] construction traffic closer to

[38:43] where it needs to go.

[38:45] Thank you. Does anybody else

[38:48] have traffic questions?

[38:50] No.

[38:54] Thank you.

[38:56] You go ahead. You go ahead for

[38:56] a little bit.

[38:59] I have no questions for staff

[39:03] at this time.

[39:05] Olson, ma

[39:05] am.

[39:10] No, sir. Okay.

[39:12] That being said, then we will

[39:14] open the public testimony

[39:17] portion of the hearing. And for

[39:18] that, would the applicant like

[39:45] to present the project?

[39:45] Just keep right here, okay?

[39:47] Okay.

[39:52] So we have Glenn and.

[39:53] Susan.

[39:55] Glenn, Glenn and Susie are

[39:56] presenting. Okay?

[39:57] Yeah. Chair Kennedy I

[39:58] ll I

[39:58] ll

[40:00] be presenting. And then as we

[40:01] need to if there are questions

[40:01] that I can

[40:02] t answer, we

[40:02] ll

[40:04] bring up the appropriate folks.

[40:04] Thank you.

[40:06] Glenn. So, uh, Chair Kennedy

[40:07] and members of the commission,

[40:08] thank you very much for the

[40:10] time to present on this, uh,

[40:11] what I believe is a beautiful

[40:13] project coming to Simi Valley.

[40:14] Um, and we

[40:15] re grateful to be

[40:16] back in front of you, I think

[40:18] now, for the sixth time since

[40:20] 2025, um, which I

[40:21] m not sure is

[40:22] a record, but could be, uh, and

[40:24] we want to thank the staff.

[40:25] City staff has done a great job

[40:27] working with us to develop the

[40:28] development agreement to make

[40:30] sure the fiscal impacts are

[40:33] addressed in this project, and

[40:34] to bring a beautiful project

[40:37] here back to Simi Valley. Um,

[40:38] as you know that tonight

[40:39] s vote

[40:40] is about the merits of this

[40:42] project. Uh, not about the

[40:43] lafco process, but it

[40:44] s hard to

[40:46] separate the two, uh, because

[40:48] lafco and state law has

[40:49] interconnected those, as staff

[40:54] has pointed out. So we wanted

[40:56] to get into a few things about

[41:00] the project itself. Um, let me

[41:01] see. I

[41:03] m one more ahead. Uh,

[41:05] the North County, uh, or I

[41:05] m

[41:06] sorry, the North Canyon Ranch

[41:08] solves what Lafco has been

[41:10] dealing with for the last 25

[41:13] years. Um, that is to address

[41:16] the county islands, um, as some

[41:16] of you know, I

[41:17] m. I

[41:18] m a owner

[41:19] of a house in one of the

[41:21] islands. I have a house on

[41:23] Avenida Simi, right behind the

[41:25] Simi Valley Hospital, with a 60

[41:28] year old septic tank. Um, just

[41:32] just to say, uh, the way this,

[41:34] this project has been, um, put

[41:36] together, it addresses the

[41:38] financial shortfalls that that

[41:41] the city was anticipating by a

[41:44] lafco, uh, directed annexation

[41:45] of the islands. Uh, it

[41:47] actually, you know, addresses

[41:48] the problem so well that it

[41:50] creates a surplus, additional

[41:52] monies for the city, uh, to be

[41:55] able to support the rest of the

[41:57] city operations after the

[41:59] project is fully built out. Uh,

[42:01] once the project is built out,

[42:03] there should be, uh, it

[42:03] s

[42:04] anticipated that there

[42:04] ll be

[42:06] over $100,000 of additional

[42:09] money going back to the city.

[42:12] Uh, project history. Um, the

[42:13] project has always been

[42:15] intended to be developed. This

[42:17] piece of land, it is in the

[42:17] city

[42:19] s general plan, and it is

[42:19] in the city

[42:20] s sphere of

[42:22] influence. The zoning that that

[42:24] that was previously put on, it

[42:27] actually allows for around 260

[42:28] homes. And we

[42:30] re building 207

[42:33] homes, um, which is a lighter

[42:35] density. And, and we

[42:35] re

[42:38] providing a mix of houses, uh,

[42:44] from 1900ft up to 3400ft as I

[42:44] as if I

[42:45] m remembering my my

[42:48] specific details. And, uh, and

[42:52] lot sizes, uh, up into the

[42:57] 15,005 thousand range. So the

[42:59] eir has been completed and with

[43:01] an extensive analysis led by

[43:03] the city and their staff, their

[43:04] consultant,

[43:07] And we can, uh, and it found

[43:10] that no significant issues

[43:11] arose, that none of the city

[43:12] s

[43:13] services or infrastructure has

[43:15] to be upsized to meet the needs

[43:17] of this project, which is a,

[43:19] you know, is important because

[43:21] that means the city had already

[43:23] planned on this, uh, in the

[43:25] future. And met is meeting

[43:28] those future needs. Uh, we

[43:30] actually also participated in

[43:32] the community outreach. We went

[43:33] because this project straddles

[43:34] two different neighborhood

[43:36] councils, Council one and

[43:37] three. You know, we went before

[43:39] both of those and received a

[43:40] support from both of those

[43:42] neighborhood councils. And as

[43:44] you know, the, uh, from when

[43:46] the town center was built, some

[43:48] of that, some of the the dirt

[43:49] was moved up to this project

[43:51] and they had created some

[43:53] super, super pads. And those

[43:54] pads were certified by the

[44:00] city, um, for this development.

[44:01] I want to thank the staff

[44:02] because they went through all

[44:04] the benefits of this project,

[44:06] but is as you can see, the

[44:08] project overall size is 160

[44:10] acres. Uh, we

[44:10] re building on

[44:14] 39% of that. Uh, the the

[44:16] project itself offers a wide,

[44:18] wide variety of housing. Um,

[44:22] and 40% of the site will will

[44:24] be left undisturbed and will be

[44:27] used for conservation. Uh, the

[44:29] project is going to, um. The

[44:30] ranchers see to be recreation.

[44:31] And Park District is also going

[44:33] to be receiving the open space,

[44:35] uh, along with some trails. And

[44:37] then in addition to that, a

[44:39] fire access road, so that if a

[44:40] fire does happen in the

[44:41] backside, they

[44:42] ll be accessed

[44:43] by the fire department, which

[44:45] conveniently is just on the

[44:47] corner of the street that

[44:47] s

[44:50] going to be connected. And so

[44:50] we think that

[44:51] s a plus for

[44:54] everybody, including, uh, these

[44:55] residents and people that live

[44:59] down on First Street. So, um,

[45:01] the fire protection and the

[45:02] connectivity benefits of

[45:03] benefits that we

[45:03] ve just talked

[45:07] about do connect and fulfill

[45:07] the city

[45:08] s desired goal to

[45:10] connect First Street to Falcon

[45:12] and to connect the First Street

[45:15] area to the big Sky area. It

[45:16] you know, if something were to

[45:18] happen at the freeway on air

[45:20] and for some reason arranger

[45:22] was blocked, it would allow the

[45:24] big Sky residents an additional

[45:26] way out, not just on top of

[45:27] Canyon, uh, which is going to

[45:29] be receiving some nice road

[45:30] improvements in the future. Uh,

[45:32] those road improvements are

[45:34] already underway, but also

[45:37] right here off of First Street.

[45:40] Um, there is again, the fire

[45:41] fuel mod modifications that are

[45:42] going in because of the new

[45:44] state law. And this being in a

[45:46] high fire zone. Uh, you know,

[45:48] creates that 200 foot buffer

[45:49] which helps everybody,

[45:51] including the big sky area. But

[45:52] on top of that, all of these

[45:53] houses, including the

[45:55] multi-family houses, will be,

[45:56] uh, sprinklers. They

[45:56] ll all

[46:00] have fire sprinklers in them. A

[46:01] few other benefits. There

[46:02] ll be

[46:04] $8.2 million paid to the city

[46:05] and the school district. Um,

[46:07] based on impact fees. Uh, the

[46:08] direct financial contribution

[46:11] of $150,000 for the public arts

[46:13] and for the library building

[46:16] fund. Um, and and in a surplus

[46:19] to the city, even after the

[46:21] annexation takes place. So I

[46:24] will wrap it up there and be

[46:25] happy to answer any questions

[46:26] that you might have. And, uh,

[46:27] and if I can

[46:28] t do it, I have

[46:29] got a good team back here that

[46:33] can.

[46:34] All right.

[46:37] Any questions of the applicant?

[46:38] I if you turn around that

[46:40] question, you said lower

[46:42] density.

[46:42] I

[46:42] m sorry.

[46:42] I can

[46:43] t hear.

[46:45] Multiple families. This is a

[46:47] meeting.

[46:47] Yeah. I

[46:49] m happy to answer his

[46:51] question.

[46:51] I

[46:52] m sorry.

[46:52] Yeah.

[46:54] Have you submitted a speaker

[46:56] card, sir?

[46:57] Yes.

[46:57] I

[46:58] m sorry. Did you submit a

[47:00] speaker card? Yes. Yeah. Okay.

[47:00] And I

[47:01] m happy to answer his

[47:01] question.

[47:02] Well, we

[47:03] ll get to it in the

[47:05] right order here. So. Okay.

[47:07] Thank you. Um, so there

[47:11] s. Do

[47:12] we have any questions of the

[47:13] applicant?

[47:16] I just have one question. And

[47:19] MR. Becerra, how far along are

[47:20] you in the process? Have you

[47:22] talked to the neighboring

[47:24] property owner about the

[47:28] possibility of, um, possibly

[47:29] not having the retaining wall

[47:32] or modifying the retaining wall

[47:33] in some way?

[47:33] Yeah.

[47:35] The property owner, our

[47:37] property owner and the

[47:38] adjoining property owner have

[47:41] been discussing an easement

[47:42] for. I think it

[47:43] s been ten

[47:45] years now. Uh, quite a long

[47:48] time. Uh, we would love that.

[47:49] Uh, because even though it

[47:51] would cost us money to buy that

[47:53] easement, uh, to build that

[47:56] wall would be quite expensive,

[47:58] right? Um, those walls are not

[47:59] uncommon. They happen all the

[47:59] time. The way we

[48:00] re designing

[48:02] it, the city staff with Brent

[48:04] seminar summer and, you know,

[48:06] and the other staff members

[48:07] have worked for years to

[48:08] develop what

[48:09] s being proposed

[48:11] now because we haven

[48:11] t been

[48:14] able to move that that along

[48:15] that process with the adjoining

[48:16] property owner, because you

[48:17] are.

[48:18] Still talking to him as what

[48:18] I

[48:22] m. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

[48:23] Any other commissioners?

[48:25] I guess I got one. So the

[48:27] financial impact or the benefit

[48:28] of the city, I thought one of

[48:29] the slides that you just ended

[48:32] with at 250, but a prior slide,

[48:33] if I remember correctly, said

[48:34] 120.

[48:35] Yeah. Well, the reason that

[48:35] s

[48:37] the difference between the

[48:39] amount of money that the amount

[48:41] of excess cash that our project

[48:43] will develop will provide to

[48:46] the city, minus what it

[48:46] ll cost

[48:47] the city. So it

[48:48] s 250 total.

[48:49] But when you separate out the

[48:51] cost of the annexation, then it

[48:52] drops it down to 112.

[48:55] Correct. Thank you.

[48:57] I have a question,

[48:59] Commissioner. Um, how, uh how

[49:01] much? How do you envision

[49:03] multifamily? Like, what? If you

[49:05] can describe it, like, are they

[49:07] townhomes? Are they for Plexus

[49:08] Duplex?

[49:09] Was.

[49:12] Two sports. Homes for sale..

[49:12] Needs to speak into the

[49:13] microphone.

[49:14] Yeah. Thank you. I

[49:14] m sorry.

[49:16] There are two story there.

[49:18] Townhomes and everything that

[49:18] we

[49:20] re proposing up is there is

[49:22] for sale. And just to address

[49:24] the question, the reason that I

[49:24] said that it

[49:26] s lower density,

[49:26] it

[49:27] s lower it

[49:28] s less housing

[49:32] that is than was previously,

[49:33] you know, than they previously

[49:34] thought could go up there. You

[49:36] know, the zoning allows for a

[49:39] roughly 260 housing units, and

[49:39] we

[49:41] re only proposing 207. So

[49:42] when I say lower density, I

[49:42] don

[49:45] t mean one acre lots. I

[49:48] mean less housing than could go

[49:49] up there.

[49:51] I have one more that connects

[49:53] to that that, uh, I know it

[49:53] s

[49:55] early in the process, but are

[49:56] you leaning more towards the

[49:59] senior or affordable? There was

[50:01] a one of the things is for for

[50:02] multifamily, it

[50:03] s 25%

[50:08] affordable or 100% senior.

[50:09] Yeah. Towards the.

[50:09] We

[50:13] re leaning towards senior.

[50:14] Any more.

[50:16] Questions.

[50:16] And we

[50:17] re not going anywhere.

[50:18] So after the residents have a

[50:19] chance to speak, we

[50:20] re happy to

[50:21] come back up and address any of

[50:22] those questions that that can

[50:23] come up afterwards.

[50:24] Thank you.

[50:24] Appreciate it.

[50:27] Thank you.

[50:29] Okay. So now we have speaker

[50:31] cards. And, uh, the first one

[50:35] is Mary Earl eral uh, who does

[50:36] not wish to speak, who

[50:37] s in

[50:40] opposition. And then, in order

[50:43] of speaker cards here, uh, is

[50:45] Emily, is it Walker?

[50:46] Walker.

[50:58] Walker. Emily. Thank you.

[51:06] Okay. Thank you.

[51:09] Emily. Walker, PRESIDENT, North

[51:14] Hills Homeowners association.

[51:16] There are many reasons why the

[51:17] North Canyon Ranch project

[51:20] should be denied. We in the

[51:22] North Hills Homeowners

[51:25] Association adamantly opposed

[51:27] the North Canyon Ranch project

[51:30] and the proposed annexation of

[51:33] county islands. If built, the

[51:36] North Canyon Ranch Project will

[51:38] be a major encroachment into

[51:41] wildlife areas. More invasion

[51:44] into wildlife areas cause more

[51:47] wild animals to invade areas of

[51:50] human habitation, as there will

[51:52] be building in the hills with

[51:54] the North Canyon Ranch Project.

[51:57] There will be increased risk of

[52:00] fire danger. Southern

[52:02] California is prone to

[52:04] wildfires, and the risk for

[52:06] wildfires in the hills is

[52:09] greatly increased, and this

[52:11] area in the hills is a high

[52:15] risk fire area. It takes a

[52:17] tremendous amount of water to

[52:20] build anything, especially a

[52:22] development of such a massive

[52:24] size as the North Canyon Ranch

[52:27] project. Also, once the

[52:30] development is completed, the

[52:31] people who will live in the

[52:34] development will use water.

[52:37] Currently, there is way too

[52:40] much traffic in Simi Valley.

[52:42] This development will increase

[52:45] traffic considerably. Many

[52:48] people live in Simi Valley to

[52:50] escape the urban sprawl of

[52:53] other areas. They want to live

[52:56] in an area with less traffic,

[52:59] less building, less density and

[53:02] in general, a less hectic

[53:05] lifestyle. If approved, the

[53:07] North Canyon Ranch project will

[53:10] create more congestion and will

[53:14] add to urban sprawl. Residents

[53:16] of the county islands want to

[53:18] remain unincorporated,

[53:21] retaining their county status.

[53:24] They want to remain semi-rural

[53:26] with large lots and animal

[53:28] keeping. They do not want to

[53:31] lose the animal overlay. If

[53:33] annexed into the city, there

[53:36] will be more and stricter rules

[53:39] and regulations. Also, there

[53:41] will be higher property taxes,

[53:44] and other taxes will be higher.

[53:47] Zoning MAY change and some

[53:49] permits will cost more in the

[53:52] city. For example, a permit to

[53:56] install a new gas furnace costs

[54:00] $150 more in the city than in

[54:02] the county. Also, trash

[54:05] collection is more expensive in

[54:08] the city than in the county. In

[54:11] conclusion, please reject the

[54:14] North Canyon Ranch project and

[54:16] the proposed annexation of the

[54:20] county islands. These are very

[54:24] bad ideas.

[54:31] Thank you.

[54:52] Next speaker is Annette Cheney.

[54:55] Cheney and I live in.

[54:58] The Sinaloa Lake area. That

[55:01] would be, I believe, eight. Um,

[55:03] I neither a lawyer nor a real

[55:06] estate agent, so I can just

[55:09] talk in general. My house was

[55:11] built by my husband in the

[55:13] early 60s. It took him seven

[55:16] years without any kind of a

[55:20] bank loan. Um, he did a

[55:22] wonderful job, and they all

[55:25] passed everything that he did.

[55:28] Um, I would like to continue to

[55:32] live there, but when what I see

[55:34] is eventually going to happen

[55:37] with the annexation, and they

[55:38] say we can still have our farm

[55:39] animals, that

[55:41] s not going to

[55:42] continue. I know once it

[55:45] becomes city, the rules are

[55:47] going to change. Maybe not for

[55:50] me, but when I do go to sell or

[55:52] my children go to sell, we

[55:53] won

[55:54] t be able to have the

[55:55] variety. We

[55:56] ll have the three

[55:57] dogs and three cats and that

[56:01] will be it. Um, the other thing

[56:05] is, you said that, uh, about

[56:06] sewers and things like that,

[56:09] that that would not be changed.

[56:11] I know it will be. We do not

[56:14] have sidewalks or streetlights

[56:18] or sewer. And I can see that

[56:21] happening. Um, whether we have

[56:23] to pay directly or our taxes go

[56:27] way up to pay for it. Um, it

[56:29] would be wonderful if we had

[56:32] some kind of a paper that was

[56:35] legitimate that would stay in

[56:37] force forever, that we could

[56:39] continue to have the animals,

[56:42] not have those other amenities.

[56:44] Uh, I like the trash service

[56:45] that we have. It is cheaper

[56:48] than waste management. I don

[56:48] t

[56:49] want to go back to that. My

[56:51] husband passed two years ago.

[56:53] My income is now half of what

[56:57] it used to be. So what I

[56:57] m

[56:58] doing is struggling to stay

[57:00] there. And I can see this is

[57:03] going to make it more difficult

[57:06] in the end. One other question.

[57:09] Um, the development at the end

[57:12] of, uh, uh, uh, arranger, i

[57:14] think it was not arranger.

[57:16] Sequoia. Um, I have friends

[57:17] that live up in that

[57:19] neighborhood. And they said

[57:21] during that time there was so

[57:23] much dust. Some of the people

[57:26] got very sick. Um, this is at

[57:29] our and and I, I know the way

[57:31] the winds blow. How are they

[57:33] going to do that? So we aren

[57:33] t

[57:35] going to have the dust flying

[57:38] all over, which includes that,

[57:39] um. Oh, it

[57:41] s a fungus that you

[57:43] get in your lungs. I forget

[57:43] what it

[57:44] s called, but I

[57:45] m 87,

[57:45] so I

[57:46] m not going to remember

[57:53] everything. Um. But I don

[57:53] t

[57:54] know what somebody said.

[57:55] Was.

[57:58] Am I am I done? Can I can I

[58:01] keep talking? Okay. So, um,

[58:05] anyway, uh, this is scary for

[58:06] me and a number of my other

[58:09] neighbors who are old or as old

[58:12] as me and I. I don

[58:13] t see any of

[58:16] them here. It was a struggle

[58:18] for me to get here, but I

[58:21] needed to come. I, I would like

[58:24] to save our area around Sinaloa

[58:25] Lake and live the way we

[58:26] ve

[58:26] always lived. It

[58:27] s just

[58:30] beautiful. Um, I lived over in

[58:32] the San Fernando Valley years

[58:35] ago, and again, city. And there

[58:37] were all these restrictions.

[58:38] So, um, we

[58:40] ve enjoyed all these

[58:41] years with our grandchildren

[58:43] and all the animals that we

[58:43] ve

[58:46] had. Um, I would like that to

[58:48] continue, not just

[58:51] grandfathered in for me, but

[58:54] somehow, if you are, if we do

[58:56] have to have that, that we can

[58:59] still have a lot of those same

[59:02] amenities without the fancy

[59:03] stuff on the side, that

[59:03] s going

[59:07] to cost us a fortune. I think

[59:07] I

[59:08] m done. And I really liked

[59:10] with this first lady, said MRS.

[59:11] Walker. I can

[59:12] t remember the

[59:15] name already, but, uh, thank

[59:17] you. I wish I could say more,

[59:17] but I didn

[59:18] t write anything

[59:20] down.

[59:30] Thank you.

[59:31] The next speaker we have is

[59:42] David Hardy.

[59:45] And here I am. I knew instantly

[59:46] what he was talking about with

[59:48] density. But to me, density is

[59:49] the number of cars that come

[59:51] down township and swing down

[59:54] reservoir. And just make nice.

[59:56] So that

[59:57] s what I consider to be

[1:00:07] density. Anyway. Um. Uh, John

[1:00:09] Tolson, Commissioner Tolson, I

[1:00:11] heard you say Becerra, as you

[1:00:13] on your zoom call. What was his

[1:00:16] position on zoom call? Who does

[1:00:18] he represent?

[1:00:18] I

[1:00:19] m right here. I

[1:00:19] m with. I

[1:00:20] m

[1:00:20] with the builder.

[1:00:21] Oh, there you go. Oh, that

[1:00:22] s

[1:00:22] you, right?

[1:00:22] Yeah.

[1:00:22] It

[1:00:23] s me.

[1:00:27] You get more gray hair. And I

[1:00:32] get shorter. Anyway, the young

[1:00:33] lady did a wonderful job

[1:00:35] reading, uh, off the

[1:00:36] statistics. And I

[1:00:36] m wondering

[1:00:38] where can I find the financial

[1:00:39] statistics that were presented

[1:00:43] on the slides? So somebody tell

[1:00:45] me where I could find them. So

[1:00:45] I haven

[1:00:46] t seen them anyway.

[1:00:46] Yeah, we

[1:00:47] ll answer those

[1:00:48] questions for you.

[1:00:48] Thank you.

[1:00:51] Oh, okay. Okay. So she she

[1:00:52] stated that it

[1:00:53] s hard for me to

[1:01:00] read this. The commission

[1:01:02] commissions are discouraging

[1:01:04] urban sprawl. That

[1:01:04] s what she

[1:01:07] read that, uh, but continuing

[1:01:11] on preserving open space and

[1:01:13] prime agricultural lands. I

[1:01:13] don

[1:01:14] t think this does that in

[1:01:17] very good stead. Frankly, if

[1:01:20] you told me that we were trying

[1:01:21] to do something for the town

[1:01:23] center and build a customer

[1:01:25] base for them, and I understand

[1:01:27] that. But this doesn

[1:01:28] t do it.

[1:01:34] And annexation can be modified.

[1:01:35] We all read this. I

[1:01:38] m sure, and

[1:01:41] it can be changed. And you as a

[1:01:42] planning commission, have the

[1:01:43] right to make changes to it or

[1:01:46] suggestions for it. And you can

[1:01:48] do that. And the city

[1:01:49] commission, I

[1:01:50] m sorry, the city

[1:01:53] council, they can do that to

[1:01:54] the only one who can

[1:01:54] t do it in

[1:01:56] the room is me and the other

[1:01:58] neighbors. We can

[1:02:00] t do that.

[1:02:02] But we can. We can lobby for it

[1:02:03] to be done because it could be

[1:02:05] some changes. Because you

[1:02:05] re

[1:02:06] only you

[1:02:08] re annexing seven of

[1:02:11] the nine islands. So that tells

[1:02:12] you that you can make changes

[1:02:16] to it. And frankly, uh, none of

[1:02:17] my neighbors want to be in the

[1:02:21] city. And I can tell you, uh,

[1:02:24] yeah, they mentioned the trash.

[1:02:26] My trash is probably one third

[1:02:28] the expense that it was when it

[1:02:30] was in the city. And that

[1:02:30] s a

[1:02:32] big difference, going from like

[1:02:37] $85 to $25. Oops. This is faded

[1:02:40] white, just that I can see it.

[1:02:43] Uh, and then do yourself, do do

[1:02:45] us all a favor. Drive down

[1:02:46] township, look for the center

[1:02:48] of the road, and then as you

[1:02:51] make the swing down reservoir,

[1:02:53] look at the difference. Okay?

[1:02:55] On the on township, you you

[1:02:56] have a hard time finding the

[1:02:58] center of the road in spots

[1:02:58] because it

[1:03:00] s not marked. You

[1:03:02] come down reservoir. The road

[1:03:03] is black. There

[1:03:03] s yellow

[1:03:04] markers. So you

[1:03:05] re in there and

[1:03:06] everywhere. And and it

[1:03:07] s much

[1:03:10] easier to traverse and and you

[1:03:11] just need to consider those

[1:03:12] things because they

[1:03:12] re

[1:03:14] important to us. And I

[1:03:15] ve been

[1:03:18] there 46 years paying taxes.

[1:03:18] Why don

[1:03:19] t I have a say in

[1:03:19] what

[1:03:22] s going on? You know, a

[1:03:25] vote of some sort. So I don

[1:03:25] t

[1:03:25] know. And I

[1:03:26] m sure all these

[1:03:27] other people are asking the

[1:03:29] same question. And you could

[1:03:30] tell for people to get out in

[1:03:32] 103 degree heat and come to a

[1:03:34] meeting, it must be important

[1:03:39] to them. So anyway, I still

[1:03:39] don

[1:03:40] t know what your position

[1:03:44] is right? Okay. I

[1:03:44] m done. Thank

[1:03:51] you. Thank you.

[1:03:57] Okay. The next speaker is Lana.

[1:04:01] Coffey. Got it. Thank you.

[1:04:02] That came out really great

[1:04:03] because Dave is my neighbor.

[1:04:04] Literally my next door. Oh,

[1:04:07] there you are. Hi, there.

[1:04:07] You

[1:04:08] re. Give them these

[1:04:09] letters.

[1:04:11] I forgot.

[1:04:11] Can I pass these?

[1:04:12] Oh, no.

[1:04:13] It just.

[1:04:13] In your speech.

[1:04:14] At the end of your speech. Oh,

[1:04:16] I got some letters for you.

[1:04:17] You want me to read them? You

[1:04:18] want me to read them?

[1:04:19] No, no.

[1:04:19] Or just give it.

[1:04:20] To them? Yeah.

[1:04:21] So I

[1:04:22] m going to make this short

[1:04:23] and sweet. My name is Lana

[1:04:26] Zukowski. Um, I purchased my

[1:04:27] house because it was

[1:04:29] unincorporated, uh, back in

[1:04:31] 2020. And that was one of my

[1:04:33] main reasons for purchasing

[1:04:35] that property. Um, I moved out

[1:04:37] of the city of Los Angeles in

[1:04:40] the Valley. Horrible, horrible

[1:04:42] experience. And when we moved

[1:04:44] into the unincorporated part of

[1:04:46] Simi Valley, it was safe. It

[1:04:49] was calm, it was quiet. Yeah.

[1:04:49] We don

[1:04:50] t have streetlights. We

[1:04:50] don

[1:04:52] t have sidewalks. But you

[1:04:53] know what? We have peace of

[1:04:54] mind. We don

[1:04:55] t have a lot of

[1:04:56] commotion. We don

[1:04:57] t have to

[1:04:59] deal with. Excuse me, the bs of

[1:05:01] most of the my friends that

[1:05:02] live in the city of Simi

[1:05:04] Valley. So I

[1:05:05] m opposed, um,

[1:05:06] against this. I also want to

[1:05:08] ask you guys, what benefit will

[1:05:10] r us as residents of the

[1:05:12] islands get from annexation?

[1:05:16] Besides an increase in taxes?

[1:05:18] Besides having to change a

[1:05:19] bunch of stuff on our

[1:05:20] properties because now it

[1:05:20] s

[1:05:22] going to be under city instead

[1:05:23] of Ventura County, Ventura

[1:05:25] County is much more lenient and

[1:05:28] much more easier to deal with,

[1:05:30] you know? So I

[1:05:30] m not happy

[1:05:32] about that. Uh, I

[1:05:32] d like to

[1:05:33] know from you guys what,

[1:05:35] besides those two things that I

[1:05:36] mentioned, what benefit I

[1:05:36] m

[1:05:38] going to get from being a city

[1:05:40] member? Also, I want to know

[1:05:41] what happens to the residents

[1:05:43] of the islands of the project

[1:05:43] doesn

[1:05:44] t get built. So you guys

[1:05:46] annex our properties, which I

[1:05:48] see as a city grab. And all of

[1:05:50] a sudden stuff happens and the

[1:05:51] project doesn

[1:05:53] t go forward, but

[1:05:53] we

[1:05:58] re still annexed. Okay? And

[1:05:59] the other thing is we do not

[1:06:01] have enough power in the city

[1:06:04] of Simi Valley. We all know

[1:06:07] power outages, brownouts. So

[1:06:07] now you

[1:06:08] re talking about

[1:06:12] putting in another 2000 homes.

[1:06:13] Where are we going to get the

[1:06:16] electricity from 2000 homes. A

[1:06:16] little.

[1:06:17] More.

[1:06:18] 200, 200.

[1:06:22] And how many multi. Uh, 207.

[1:06:24] And the multifamily.

[1:06:26] Including the multi-family.

[1:06:27] Okay. Anyway, where are we

[1:06:28] going to get the power for all

[1:06:31] of this. I mean I

[1:06:31] m sure if you

[1:06:33] all live in city, you

[1:06:33] ve all

[1:06:35] experienced brownouts,

[1:06:37] blackouts, power outages, my

[1:06:38] friends, uh, off of corner, a

[1:06:40] couple, uh, Thanksgivings ago

[1:06:42] had no power for four days.

[1:06:43] Okay, so now we

[1:06:44] re putting in

[1:06:46] all of these new people, plus

[1:06:47] the noise from the

[1:06:49] construction. The roads got

[1:06:50] damaged from all the trucks

[1:06:52] going to the to the dump

[1:06:54] because of the fires. So now

[1:06:54] we

[1:06:55] re going to damage our roads

[1:06:56] somewhere. We

[1:06:56] re going to cause

[1:06:57] some more traffic. We

[1:06:58] re going

[1:06:59] to ruin our freeways. We

[1:06:59] re

[1:07:02] going to make it horribly

[1:07:03] impossible to get up to the dog

[1:07:06] park, which I usually frequent,

[1:07:07] you know, so not happy about

[1:07:10] that. Um, also, what I want to

[1:07:13] say is, you guys, this is

[1:07:15] number four of your on the

[1:07:17] other side of the map, uh, is

[1:07:19] the city required to request

[1:07:20] annexation of unincorporated

[1:07:23] islands? Lafco law does not

[1:07:25] require a city to request the

[1:07:26] annexation of unincorporated

[1:07:27] islands. The city is free to

[1:07:29] make that choice. So you guys

[1:07:30] make that choice. So please

[1:07:32] rescind that choice. We do not

[1:07:34] want to be on it. I do not want

[1:07:37] to be a part of Simi Valley,

[1:07:38] okay? Because you do not want

[1:07:41] to know how I vote. Okay. So

[1:07:42] all I have to say is I believe

[1:07:44] that this is a city grab for

[1:07:46] properties and I oppose it.

[1:07:47] Stop the annexation. You asked

[1:07:49] for it. Rescind the application

[1:07:56] and leave us the heck alone.

[1:08:03] Thank you.

[1:08:05] And I believe our last speaker

[1:08:25] card is Vern oath. There we go.

[1:08:25] Hi. That

[1:08:28] s Vern Orth Island

[1:08:30] eight, Island eight.

[1:08:31] Yeah.

[1:08:35] Um, personally, I think this

[1:08:36] agreement is between the

[1:08:38] developer and the city of Simi.

[1:08:39] I don

[1:08:41] t really like seeing more

[1:08:44] open space getting paved over,

[1:08:47] but my big my big, uh,

[1:08:49] complaint is this annexation

[1:08:50] thing of the other islands.

[1:08:50] It

[1:08:53] s our lafco rep here today

[1:08:56] at the last meeting. Uh, we

[1:08:57] really had to pin him down. He

[1:08:58] admitted that

[1:08:59] s not part of the

[1:09:00] code. That

[1:09:02] s their policy. And

[1:09:05] if you have, uh, the California

[1:09:09] code, five, six, 375, it states

[1:09:12] Lafco MAY not mandate or

[1:09:14] require annexation, and it

[1:09:14] s up

[1:09:17] to the residents of that island

[1:09:21] to request that. So we keep

[1:09:22] hearing this. It

[1:09:23] s required.

[1:09:23] It

[1:09:24] s mandated. We have to do

[1:09:25] this. And that

[1:09:26] s simply not

[1:09:28] true. So that

[1:09:29] s all I got to

[1:09:30] say.

[1:09:40] Thank you.

[1:09:42] Okay. Uh, are there any

[1:09:43] comments from staff regarding

[1:09:45] statements made during the

[1:09:51] public hearing? And deputy city

[1:09:52] planner as well?

[1:09:53] Do you want to start? You want

[1:09:54] me to start?

[1:09:54] I

[1:09:55] ll start with Elizabeth.

[1:09:59] Okay. Elizabeth.

[1:10:02] Um, so starting with Emily

[1:10:04] Walker, she made comments about

[1:10:07] the wildfires. Um, just as a

[1:10:08] note, this project will

[1:10:09] continue to be reviewed by the

[1:10:11] Ventura County Fire Department.

[1:10:14] They have printed they have

[1:10:16] done a draft preliminary review

[1:10:22] and approval of the, um. Oh, my

[1:10:23] gosh, the board just escaped

[1:10:26] me. The, um, the fuel

[1:10:28] modification plan. Thank you.

[1:10:32] Um, and this is the approved

[1:10:33] fuel modification. This is the

[1:10:35] acceptable fuel modification

[1:10:36] plan. But as we move forward

[1:10:37] with building permits, they

[1:10:37] re

[1:10:38] going to continue reviewing

[1:10:40] this to ensure that it complies

[1:10:43] with, um, with current rules.

[1:10:46] Um, there were questions about

[1:10:49] water. Um, Ventura, uh, City

[1:10:50] Waterworks District eight has

[1:10:52] reviewed it. This uses, um,

[1:10:55] only 5% of the surplus, um,

[1:10:57] water supply that we have. So

[1:10:57] there

[1:11:00] s water available. Um,

[1:11:02] she had concerns about losing

[1:11:04] the animal overlay staff has

[1:11:05] studied the zoning maps to

[1:11:07] ensure that the animal overlays

[1:11:08] that are allowed by the county

[1:11:10] continue is, upon annexation

[1:11:13] into the city. Um, Island

[1:11:15] eight, we did update to include

[1:11:17] animal um, the animal overlay

[1:11:22] with the pre zone. Um, MISS

[1:11:25] Cheney, um, she has concerns

[1:11:27] about septic continue with the

[1:11:30] animals. Um, and the dust

[1:11:32] mitigation. So city staff has

[1:11:32] identified that we

[1:11:33] re going to

[1:11:34] continue to allow the septic

[1:11:35] systems. We

[1:11:35] re not going to

[1:11:37] force connection to the sewer

[1:11:41] upon annexation. Um, Runkle,

[1:11:42] uh, she had concerns about the

[1:11:45] dust. The, uh, mitigation

[1:11:47] measures from the eir and the

[1:11:49] air quality section do require

[1:11:50] that there be dust mitigation

[1:11:52] during construction. Um,

[1:11:53] normally they put silt fencing

[1:11:55] up on the fences to keep, to

[1:11:57] try to keep the dust in, um,

[1:11:58] contained within the property,

[1:12:00] as well as having water trucks

[1:12:01] to water it down, especially in

[1:12:05] high wind events. Um, MR.

[1:12:07] Hardy, he has questions about

[1:12:08] where to find the fiscal impact

[1:12:10] analysis that is attached to

[1:12:12] the development agreement,

[1:12:13] which is included in tonight

[1:12:13] s

[1:12:17] staff report. Packet. Um, it

[1:12:17] s

[1:12:17] a it

[1:12:19] s a, um, it

[1:12:21] s an exhibit

[1:12:22] to it. I believe it

[1:12:23] s exhibit

[1:12:28] b. Um.

[1:12:30] Was that in front table?

[1:12:31] The report is posted on the

[1:12:32] website. It

[1:12:33] s like an 800 page

[1:12:35] report.

[1:12:36] Um, he also made comments that

[1:12:37] the Planning commission and

[1:12:38] City council have the ability

[1:12:40] to change the island annexation

[1:12:42] policy. That policy is state

[1:12:43] law. Um, it

[1:12:45] s not a policy

[1:12:48] that, um, that the city has,

[1:12:50] uh, regulations, uh, has the

[1:12:52] ability to regulate that state

[1:12:53] law. And then it

[1:12:53] s policy

[1:13:00] adopted by Lafco. Um. MISS

[1:13:02] Zukofsky, she had questions and

[1:13:04] concerns about the electricity.

[1:13:05] Um, our city manager

[1:13:06] s office

[1:13:09] is works with Edison to ensure

[1:13:11] that our that our projects are

[1:13:11] on Edison

[1:13:14] s map. Um, and it

[1:13:14] s

[1:13:17] anticipated that we are, um,

[1:13:18] that we

[1:13:18] re going to be looking

[1:13:20] for electricity. She also said

[1:13:20] that there

[1:13:21] s going to be 2000

[1:13:22] homes. That

[1:13:23] s untrue. There

[1:13:23] s

[1:13:27] 207, 157 single family homes,

[1:13:35] 50 multifamily. And then, um.

[1:13:38] MR. Orth, uh, made the comment

[1:13:39] that I told them it

[1:13:40] s not code

[1:13:41] to annex islands. It

[1:13:42] s policy.

[1:13:42] Um, it

[1:13:45] s a policy. It

[1:13:46] s

[1:13:47] contained in the state in the

[1:13:49] 2000, Bill Lafco adopted,

[1:13:53] adopted their policy. Um, and

[1:13:53] it

[1:13:55] s not a requirement that the

[1:13:56] city today file an application

[1:13:59] just to annex the islands. The

[1:13:59] reason why we

[1:14:00] re annexing the

[1:14:01] islands is because we have the

[1:14:03] North Canyon development and

[1:14:04] Lafco policies. If you

[1:14:04] re going

[1:14:07] to take North Canyons, you have

[1:14:09] to also apply and take the

[1:14:10] islands. And that

[1:14:11] s why we

[1:14:11] re

[1:14:12] here tonight with the island

[1:14:14] annexation.

[1:14:16] As a complete contrast to what

[1:14:18] this paper says. Number four,

[1:14:19] uh, the other side of the map,

[1:14:21] complete contrast of what this

[1:14:24] paper actually says.

[1:14:25] All right, let

[1:14:25] s, uh, let

[1:14:25] s

[1:14:28] hold the comments.

[1:14:29] Uh.

[1:14:31] Did you, uh, do a little more

[1:14:34] detail? Elizabeth, on, uh, how

[1:14:37] the 2000, uh, clarification,

[1:14:39] uh, changed the document that

[1:14:40] this lady is talking about

[1:14:41] here.

[1:14:44] Right. So, um, state the 2000

[1:14:46] state law, uh, the city

[1:14:49] legislature, in order to their

[1:14:52] their purpose behind it was to,

[1:14:54] um, make sure that, uh,

[1:14:57] underserved county islands

[1:14:59] were, um, were annexed into the

[1:15:00] cities. However, it

[1:15:01] s a blanket

[1:15:03] statement. It covers all county

[1:15:03] islands. It doesn

[1:15:04] t focus on

[1:15:07] underserved. Our county islands

[1:15:07] aren

[1:15:08] t necessarily underserved,

[1:15:10] but they are islands that don

[1:15:10] t

[1:15:12] receive services from the city.

[1:15:17] Um. I have the faq from Lafco.

[1:15:19] Here.

[1:15:20] Yeah, they say law does not

[1:15:22] require city to request the

[1:15:24] annexation of unincorporated

[1:15:25] islands. Those cities are free

[1:15:27] to make such a request to Lafco

[1:15:28] at any time. And I think that

[1:15:31] statement is meaning that the

[1:15:33] city does not have to file an

[1:15:35] independent application to

[1:15:38] Lafco for the island annexation.

[1:15:44] Okay.

[1:15:49] No, no.

[1:15:49] I

[1:15:50] m sorry. Thank you.

[1:15:52] Um, the city doesn

[1:15:52] t have to

[1:15:54] make an independent island

[1:15:57] annexation request. The island

[1:16:01] annexations are being included

[1:16:03] with the annexation because

[1:16:03] we

[1:16:04] re annexing North Canyon

[1:16:06] Ranch, and it exceeds the 40

[1:16:08] acres in size. And Lafco policy

[1:16:11] says city. If you annex North

[1:16:16] Canyon Ranch, you north. If you

[1:16:17] annex north, if you request to

[1:16:18] annex North Canyon Ranch and

[1:16:19] it

[1:16:20] s approved in order to

[1:16:22] record it city, you must file

[1:16:23] application to annex the

[1:16:24] islands.

[1:16:27] So in that it was brought up

[1:16:27] that there

[1:16:28] s two islands that

[1:16:28] aren

[1:16:29] t being annexed.

[1:16:31] Correct. An island six and

[1:16:31] nine.

[1:16:32] Yeah. And the exception for

[1:16:33] those.

[1:16:33] Uh, they don

[1:16:35] t meet Lafco

[1:16:38] definition of being a island

[1:16:39] that needs to be annexed.

[1:16:39] They

[1:16:40] re not. They use the word

[1:16:40] they

[1:16:42] re not developed. Uh,

[1:16:45] meaning that Island six, which

[1:16:47] is the triangle shaped island

[1:16:48] just north of us here. It only

[1:16:50] has a single family residence

[1:16:50] on it. It

[1:16:51] s not fully developed

[1:16:53] to its full potential. And then

[1:16:56] Island nine is a vacant lot,

[1:16:58] um, off of Kuna. Right. And

[1:16:59] it

[1:17:00] s completely undeveloped. So

[1:17:00] they don

[1:17:02] t meet the definition

[1:17:04] of lafco to require the island

[1:17:05] annexation.

[1:17:06] Thank you for that

[1:17:17] clarification.

[1:17:17] On this.

[1:17:19] Uh, would the applicant at this

[1:17:26] time like to respond?

[1:17:26] We

[1:17:27] re going to ask Elaine

[1:17:29] Freeman to address some more of

[1:17:30] the lafco issues.

[1:17:30] She

[1:17:32] s she

[1:17:32] s.

[1:17:32] Pretty well versed.

[1:17:32] In.

[1:17:34] This area.

[1:17:35] Yes. Elaine Freeman, I

[1:17:36] m a

[1:17:37] lafco. I was a lafco

[1:17:39] commissioner for 12 or 12

[1:17:43] years. Um, Lafco actually

[1:17:44] formed in the late eight, in

[1:17:47] 1963, I believe, and it was

[1:17:50] amended when Hertzberg was on

[1:17:53] the Senate creating the 40 acre

[1:17:57] process. Lafco is a state

[1:18:01] mandated agency. Each county in

[1:18:03] the state must have what its

[1:18:05] purpose is orderly development,

[1:18:08] preservation of agriculture.

[1:18:11] Uh, the Commission does the

[1:18:12] annexations. Annexations,

[1:18:16] reorganizations. They also do a

[1:18:18] municipal service review every

[1:18:21] five years on all the agencies

[1:18:23] that are covered by Lafco to

[1:18:24] make sure they

[1:18:25] re operating

[1:18:26] under the rules are supposed to

[1:18:31] be operating under this, uh,

[1:18:33] situation occurred when the

[1:18:35] amendment was made to state

[1:18:37] law. That clearly stated that

[1:18:39] the next annexation that

[1:18:41] occurred would require the

[1:18:46] bringing in of all islands, um,

[1:18:48] with the exception of the 40

[1:18:50] acres. So this is something

[1:18:52] that is state law. And I know

[1:18:54] there was a comment made to you

[1:18:56] or the city could change that

[1:18:59] law. Uh, no, it doesn

[1:19:00] t work

[1:19:01] that way because it is a state

[1:19:02] law. So it would have to go

[1:19:05] through the state legislature,

[1:19:07] create a bill, get it through

[1:19:10] the process, and Lafco has a

[1:19:13] commission, a statewide, uh

[1:19:17] lafco organization. Cal Lafco

[1:19:19] would look at the legislation

[1:19:21] and determine if it was a

[1:19:23] viable piece of legislation

[1:19:24] that Cal Lafco would even

[1:19:27] support to to change the law

[1:19:31] the way it is existed. So it is

[1:19:32] not a simple process. It

[1:19:33] s a

[1:19:36] statewide process. Um, we just

[1:19:38] happen to be, at this point of

[1:19:41] the legislation, and I know

[1:19:41] it

[1:19:44] s difficult. A lafco meets

[1:19:47] once a month on a Wednesday.

[1:19:48] Uh, assuming there

[1:19:48] s actions

[1:19:51] that need to be taken and it is

[1:19:54] a public hearing, and you will

[1:19:57] the property owners will be

[1:19:59] notified or they should make

[1:20:02] sure that they watch the lafco

[1:20:07] agenda. Um, but as a city, the

[1:20:10] city is actually pretty limited

[1:20:12] in their abilities of what they

[1:20:14] can do on the annexation, since

[1:20:16] it is state law. And I want to

[1:20:17] make that really clear. It

[1:20:17] s

[1:20:17] it

[1:20:21] s a state law. And, um,

[1:20:24] uncomfortable as that is that

[1:20:26] is what the law is. And after

[1:20:27] being a commissioner for all

[1:20:29] those years, um, I can

[1:20:32] sympathize with people, but,

[1:20:36] um, the whole point of Lafco is

[1:20:38] orderly development. And for

[1:20:41] areas to be served by the

[1:20:43] organization that is closer to

[1:20:46] them, which in this case is the

[1:20:49] city of Simi Valley. So if

[1:20:49] there

[1:20:51] s any questions on Lafco,

[1:20:51] I

[1:20:54] ll be glad to answer them.

[1:20:56] Can you tell us what state law.

[1:20:57] That is?

[1:20:58] I

[1:20:58] m sorry.

[1:21:00] What what state law is that?

[1:21:02] What is the number?

[1:21:03] Um, it

[1:21:04] s known as the Cortez.

[1:21:08] Cortez. NOx. Hirschberg rule.

[1:21:09] That

[1:21:11] s what you would look up.

[1:21:11] I believe it

[1:21:12] s referenced on

[1:21:13] the screen.

[1:21:13] Yeah, it

[1:21:14] s in part of the

[1:21:15] presentation.

[1:21:18] Yes. All the rules are in

[1:21:18] there. It

[1:21:19] s. It

[1:21:20] s a rather

[1:21:23] extensive document. Spells out

[1:21:28] everything that can occur. Um,

[1:21:31] within the boundaries. Are

[1:21:32] there any other questions?

[1:21:35] Yeah. So just to summarize, uh,

[1:21:37] so by bringing this project in,

[1:21:37] we

[1:21:40] ve triggered, uh, the lafco,

[1:21:42] uh, annexation of the islands.

[1:21:43] That is correct.

[1:21:44] So, uh, we

[1:21:44] re we

[1:21:45] re in a binary

[1:21:48] situation is right. We don

[1:21:48] t

[1:21:49] approve this project. We don

[1:21:49] t

[1:21:52] trigger lafco. But the next

[1:21:52] project.

[1:21:54] The next annexation, you will.

[1:21:54] It

[1:21:56] s inevitable. Right? And

[1:21:57] there will be a next one.

[1:21:59] Yes.

[1:22:01] Thank you. Um.

[1:22:04] I have a question to, uh. There

[1:22:06] is no way for us to separate

[1:22:07] this. I know the developer

[1:22:09] would love that too, but is

[1:22:11] there a way for us to separate

[1:22:12] that? No.

[1:22:13] Thank you.

[1:22:15] And, Commissioner Tolson,

[1:22:16] you

[1:22:17] re in the queue.

[1:22:19] There was one of the public

[1:22:22] speakers asked what happens if

[1:22:23] the project isn

[1:22:24] t built? Does

[1:22:28] the annexation still happen?

[1:22:31] I would have to say that once

[1:22:33] the annexation is approved and

[1:22:36] becomes part of the city, it is

[1:22:42] part of the city. But I they

[1:22:45] they the applicant has prepared

[1:22:47] all the legals, all the maps,

[1:22:47] everything that

[1:22:50] s required. Um,

[1:22:52] for lafco. That was a

[1:22:54] requirement of the developer to

[1:22:56] get everything ready for Lafco.

[1:22:59] And Lafco is quite aware of

[1:23:04] this process going on. Um, from

[1:23:05] my experience, I would doubt

[1:23:07] very much if someone would take

[1:23:09] it this far and then not build

[1:23:14] the project. Just a guess.

[1:23:15] What? Just another

[1:23:17] clarification. So the, uh, the

[1:23:20] lafco this the trigger for the

[1:23:22] lafco and, uh, so both of these

[1:23:23] processes are running

[1:23:24] concurrently, right?

[1:23:25] Correct.

[1:23:25] Right. And they

[1:23:26] ll continue

[1:23:27] down that timeline

[1:23:30] concurrently. So if, if, uh,

[1:23:31] one can

[1:23:32] t happen without the

[1:23:34] other, right. The builder can

[1:23:35] t

[1:23:37] complete unless, uh, the

[1:23:38] annexation.

[1:23:39] Is correct, they

[1:23:40] re required

[1:23:40] and it

[1:23:42] s within the city of the

[1:23:42] city

[1:23:45] s, sewer boundary. And so

[1:23:46] it has always been anticipated

[1:23:48] it would be brought into the

[1:23:49] city.

[1:23:50] Okay. That clears that up for

[1:23:51] me. Thank you.

[1:23:51] You

[1:23:52] re welcome. Any other

[1:23:55] questions? Yes.

[1:23:57] So what about this development?

[1:23:59] Just be specific. Puts it that

[1:24:01] it has to be incorporated in or

[1:24:02] the islands need to be

[1:24:03] incorporated in. Other

[1:24:04] developments have come into

[1:24:07] play and see me. But what makes

[1:24:09] this development one that

[1:24:10] triggers Lafco?

[1:24:10] It

[1:24:12] s the first one since the

[1:24:14] last annexation.

[1:24:15] Okay.

[1:24:20] Thank you.

[1:24:21] Thank you very much.

[1:24:25] Okay. Any any other, uh, any

[1:24:26] other comments that the

[1:24:26] applicant I

[1:24:27] d like to respond

[1:24:28] to?

[1:24:29] Well, yeah, I just I would, I

[1:24:31] would say just a couple things.

[1:24:34] One, you know, and what Elaine

[1:24:36] said about Lafco, you know, in

[1:24:38] state law with the Hertzberg

[1:24:42] bill, um, and their policy to

[1:24:44] bring in these unincorporated

[1:24:46] islands, see, me and Camarillo

[1:24:48] are the only two communities

[1:24:50] that have these islands left.

[1:24:51] All the rest of them, Oxnard,

[1:24:53] Ventura, they all of them have

[1:24:56] been those those issues, uh, of

[1:24:58] not having or having these

[1:25:00] islands not incorporated in the

[1:25:02] cities has been remedied in all

[1:25:03] of the other cities over the

[1:25:07] last 25 years. And so this is

[1:25:09] we can say that right now, this

[1:25:11] is the this project has

[1:25:13] triggered this. But if let

[1:25:14] s

[1:25:14] say for some reason, we didn

[1:25:15] t

[1:25:16] build this project, you

[1:25:16] ve said

[1:25:18] no. And, you know, we had to go

[1:25:21] away. Laugh goes goal and

[1:25:23] stated goal is to remedy this

[1:25:25] issue and bring these islands

[1:25:26] into the city as part of their

[1:25:27] order of the development. It

[1:25:28] s

[1:25:29] going to happen at some point,

[1:25:32] no matter what. And that

[1:25:32] s

[1:25:32] that

[1:25:33] s I mean, they

[1:25:34] re driving

[1:25:34] this. The city isn

[1:25:35] t driving

[1:25:35] this. We

[1:25:36] re not driving. This

[1:25:38] laugh goes driving it because

[1:25:39] they want those islands

[1:25:40] incorporated in the city,

[1:25:42] because that makes sense for

[1:25:44] orderly development. Look, I,

[1:25:45] you know, I was born in the

[1:25:49] house on Avenida in the island

[1:25:51] 59 years ago. And, uh, and I

[1:25:51] m

[1:25:52] proud to say I still own that

[1:25:54] house in the island. Uh, and

[1:25:56] for the 20 years that I served

[1:25:57] on the city council, my mom

[1:25:57] couldn

[1:26:00] t vote for me. Uh, in

[1:26:01] any of the elections. So one of

[1:26:02] the questions was, what are the

[1:26:05] benefits that you get that you

[1:26:05] don

[1:26:07] t get now? Well, you get to

[1:26:09] come down here as a resident

[1:26:11] and now constituent that no

[1:26:14] longer, you know, is, you know,

[1:26:15] a non constituent in the city.

[1:26:17] And when the city makes you a

[1:26:19] promise. And I liked what one

[1:26:20] woman, I think it was a lady

[1:26:22] who came up and said, put it in

[1:26:25] writing and commit to us that

[1:26:25] you won

[1:26:27] t take away our animal

[1:26:28] overlay. Commit to us. You

[1:26:29] won

[1:26:30] t make you know, the the

[1:26:33] sewer mandatory and those types

[1:26:35] of things. Um, if you try to

[1:26:37] change it and you come down as

[1:26:38] an unincorporated island

[1:26:41] person, you really are speaking

[1:26:42] as a, you might as well be from

[1:26:44] San Fernando Valley. And the

[1:26:45] one lady said, I don

[1:26:45] t want to

[1:26:46] be part of Sammy. I mean, so

[1:26:48] you could be anywhere if you

[1:26:48] don

[1:26:49] t want to be part of Simi

[1:26:50] Valley. And so but if you

[1:26:51] re a

[1:26:53] constituent resident, then you

[1:26:54] can come back down and hold

[1:26:56] your city council accountable

[1:26:58] to the commitments that they

[1:26:58] ve

[1:27:00] made. And so I think there

[1:27:00] s

[1:27:00] there

[1:27:01] s just a little different

[1:27:02] way. A lot of the other issues

[1:27:03] I can

[1:27:05] t argue about, uh, you

[1:27:06] know, but I think the city has

[1:27:08] gone above and beyond to make

[1:27:10] sure that these residents, if

[1:27:12] they are incorporated, get to

[1:27:13] maintain the quality of life

[1:27:15] and the style of life that

[1:27:15] they

[1:27:16] ve become accustomed to. I

[1:27:18] know I watched my mom, my mom

[1:27:19] passed away four years ago,

[1:27:21] and, you know, she didn

[1:27:21] t do a

[1:27:23] lot of landscaping in the

[1:27:24] house, but she kept her weeds

[1:27:26] mowed. You know, she she lived

[1:27:27] a very simple life out there,

[1:27:28] and she loved it. And she was

[1:27:30] part of the hoa that the that

[1:27:32] the lady came up and spoke

[1:27:34] from. Um, it

[1:27:36] s a unique part of

[1:27:39] Simi Valley and the lifestyle

[1:27:41] in those areas are unique. And

[1:27:42] I loved it growing up there.

[1:27:45] And, you know, maybe when I

[1:27:46] outgrow my two storey house and

[1:27:46] I can

[1:27:48] t climb stairs anymore,

[1:27:48] that

[1:27:48] s why I

[1:27:49] m keeping that

[1:27:50] house, because I might move

[1:27:52] back into that one storey, 1900

[1:27:53] square foot house that we built

[1:27:54] in 1964. Because it

[1:27:55] s it

[1:27:55] s a

[1:27:56] great it

[1:27:56] s a great house and

[1:27:57] it

[1:27:58] s a great area, but it is

[1:28:00] literally surrounded by the

[1:28:03] city of Simi Valley. And so I

[1:28:04] would I would leave it at, you

[1:28:06] know, with that, this, this,

[1:28:09] this annexation, uh, was always

[1:28:11] meant to be the the pads were

[1:28:14] built, the city certified them

[1:28:16] the road, you know, circulation

[1:28:18] element was looking to make

[1:28:20] those connections. And we

[1:28:20] re

[1:28:22] coming in under the amount of

[1:28:23] housing that could go there.

[1:28:23] It

[1:28:24] s a good project for this

[1:28:27] community. Um, but I do I

[1:28:28] understand the residents

[1:28:30] concerns. Uh, I will I will ask

[1:28:32] one question. It

[1:28:32] s my

[1:28:33] understanding, and I think the

[1:28:36] staff mentioned it, that it

[1:28:36] ll

[1:28:38] take about a year from the time

[1:28:40] this approval happens, if the

[1:28:41] city council approves it, the

[1:28:42] letter gets sent to Lafco

[1:28:45] before our annexation of just

[1:28:47] our project site comes into the

[1:28:49] city. Then they said there

[1:28:49] s a

[1:28:52] five year window that could be

[1:28:55] asked for with Lafco to delay

[1:28:56] annexation of the islands for

[1:28:58] an additional five years. And

[1:28:59] my understanding that there

[1:28:59] s

[1:29:00] two one year additions on top

[1:29:02] of that for a total of seven

[1:29:03] years, which would give the

[1:29:05] residents potentially eight

[1:29:07] more years from now before they

[1:29:09] they would come into the city.

[1:29:16] Is that correct?

[1:29:16] I don

[1:29:17] t know about those

[1:29:19] extensions. I heard that as

[1:29:20] well at the, you know, the

[1:29:22] concurrent timeline of the

[1:29:23] annexation could extend five

[1:29:24] years.

[1:29:25] Right? My understanding is we

[1:29:28] can request those, uh, those

[1:29:29] extensions and allow those

[1:29:31] residents to have the security

[1:29:33] to know that their annexations

[1:29:34] won

[1:29:36] t be complete for roughly

[1:29:37] eight additional.

[1:29:38] Years.

[1:29:38] We

[1:29:38] ll have to.

[1:29:39] Approve that. Right.

[1:29:40] But our recommendation.

[1:29:42] Right. So, but the city can

[1:29:43] request that. So the city could

[1:29:44] request that. My understanding

[1:29:46] is Lafco has never denied those

[1:29:49] requests. And so at least that

[1:29:50] would give these residents

[1:29:51] another, let

[1:29:52] s say, eight

[1:29:54] years, 7 or 8 years to not

[1:29:57] worry while the city is putting

[1:30:00] those concerns in writing for

[1:30:01] them. So anyway, I

[1:30:02] m going to

[1:30:03] end there, and I thank you for

[1:30:03] your time and your

[1:30:05] consideration tonight.

[1:30:06] All right.

[1:30:12] Thank you, Lynn. Okay. At this

[1:30:13] time, if there are no further

[1:30:13] questions, we

[1:30:14] ll close the

[1:30:15] public testimony portion of the

[1:30:17] hearing. Are there any comments

[1:30:18] or questions from members of

[1:30:19] the Planning Commission at this

[1:30:23] time?

[1:30:24] I see.

[1:30:27] I see John and the queue.

[1:30:28] I got one question for staff.

[1:30:29] And just to just to clarify

[1:30:34] about the animal overlay, is

[1:30:38] there a is there, um, a sunset

[1:30:40] clause on who would have what

[1:30:44] animals on these annexed areas

[1:30:46] moving forward?

[1:30:48] So in terms of if they have

[1:30:51] animals in areas that do not

[1:30:52] have animal overlays, pre

[1:30:56] zoned, um, that is a point of,

[1:30:57] of island annexation that staff

[1:30:58] hasn

[1:31:00] t begun discussing yet.

[1:31:04] Um, similar to the um, public

[1:31:06] comment about having having a

[1:31:08] list of what are we going to

[1:31:09] enforce and what are we going

[1:31:10] to grandfathered in? That list

[1:31:11] also hasn

[1:31:13] t been worked on.

[1:31:20] Thank you very much.

[1:31:21] Commissioner Christmann.

[1:31:23] Thank you. I actually have the

[1:31:26] list of proposed zoning. It

[1:31:26] s

[1:31:29] number ten on the staff report.

[1:31:32] Um, area five and area seven do

[1:31:36] not have any any animal or farm

[1:31:39] animal overlay. Um, and I don

[1:31:39] t

[1:31:42] know if those areas right now

[1:31:42] include it

[1:31:44] s number page number

[1:31:46] ten in the staff report.

[1:31:49] So staff did study county

[1:31:51] county maps to see if they have

[1:31:54] animal overlays on them. Those

[1:31:55] two areas that you

[1:31:56] re seeing,

[1:31:56] they didn

[1:31:57] t have an animal

[1:32:01] overlay per county zoning. Um,

[1:32:03] island eight that were pre

[1:32:05] zoning as part of this action,

[1:32:07] those residential estate lots

[1:32:09] have animal overlays on them

[1:32:11] with the with the county. So

[1:32:11] we

[1:32:12] re continuing we

[1:32:12] re bringing

[1:32:15] those forward with the with the

[1:32:17] annexation with this, um, pre

[1:32:18] zoning request to ensure that

[1:32:20] they continue to be allowed to

[1:32:21] have animals. Um, my

[1:32:23] understanding of Commissioner

[1:32:25] Tulsans question was for those

[1:32:28] properties that have animals in

[1:32:29] them that don

[1:32:31] t currently have,

[1:32:32] um, an animal overlay on them

[1:32:34] with the, with the, with the

[1:32:35] county. And what

[1:32:35] s going to

[1:32:37] happen to those animals?

[1:32:40] Yeah. Thank you. I also, um,

[1:32:42] calculated the overall open

[1:32:43] space that is going to stay

[1:32:44] open. So it

[1:32:45] s a it

[1:32:47] s 44%. I

[1:32:48] think you said around 44. But

[1:32:50] then I added it all together

[1:32:51] with the slopes and drainage

[1:32:53] and landscaping and parks. And

[1:32:53] it

[1:32:53] s actually it

[1:32:55] s around 68%.

[1:32:56] So I

[1:32:58] m pretty happy about all

[1:32:59] of the open space that is going

[1:33:02] to stay there. Um, I

[1:33:03] m going to

[1:33:04] let somebody else talk. I have

[1:33:07] more.

[1:33:11] Okay, okay. Uh, a couple people

[1:33:14] brought up costs and fees, has

[1:33:15] city staff looked into, I

[1:33:15] m

[1:33:18] assuming now the county is

[1:33:20] Athens trash service, where the

[1:33:22] city is. Waste management. Is

[1:33:23] there that much of a

[1:33:24] discrepancy in trash service

[1:33:26] fees between those two?

[1:33:27] Yes.

[1:33:27] Yeah.

[1:33:27] Okay.

[1:33:29] Okay.

[1:33:29] I

[1:33:31] ll see if staff has any

[1:33:37] answers first.

[1:33:39] Sean, I don

[1:33:40] t know the cost of

[1:33:43] our trash services versus.

[1:33:44] I don

[1:33:45] t know the exact numbers,

[1:33:47] Commissioner, but I did hear,

[1:33:50] uh, in a conversation that was

[1:33:52] at least $10 per month. More

[1:33:53] expensive.

[1:33:54] For the city.

[1:33:57] For waste management is at

[1:33:59] least $10 a month. More than

[1:34:02] Athens. So it is an increase it

[1:34:03] you know, it could be very

[1:34:03] situation. I don

[1:34:04] t have the

[1:34:06] exact numbers, but yeah, based

[1:34:07] on the audience reaction, it

[1:34:07] s

[1:34:10] very clear that the, um, waste

[1:34:14] management is more, um, the

[1:34:16] commission could always

[1:34:18] recommend that the city council

[1:34:24] or, um, it that the, you know,

[1:34:27] the applicant or the city, um,

[1:34:28] reach out to Waste management

[1:34:29] to see if, if and when

[1:34:31] annexation does occur, if

[1:34:31] there

[1:34:32] s some sort of grace

[1:34:34] period to for those islands,

[1:34:39] perhaps some sort of negotiated

[1:34:40] settlement just for those

[1:34:41] customers, there MAY be

[1:34:43] something, maybe a goodwill

[1:34:45] gesture, just a suggestion.

[1:34:47] And the other part was

[1:34:48] somebody, one of the speakers

[1:34:50] brought up, specifically a

[1:34:53] permit fee was $107 more for

[1:34:55] the city than for the county.

[1:34:57] Again, any idea of the validity

[1:34:58] of that? I

[1:34:58] m assuming it

[1:34:59] s a

[1:35:02] true statement, but I

[1:35:02] m

[1:35:03] assuming that we can.

[1:35:04] Again, we haven

[1:35:05] t studied the

[1:35:07] cost comparison between, um,

[1:35:08] Ventura County Building

[1:35:10] Department permit fees versus

[1:35:12] City of Simi Valley building

[1:35:13] permit fees. Um, that

[1:35:14] s

[1:35:15] something that we could study

[1:35:16] for city council.

[1:35:23] Okay. Thank you.

[1:35:27] Any other comments, questions,

[1:35:28] questions?

[1:35:31] Do you have more questions? Uh.

[1:35:32] Lost my question.

[1:35:36] Um.

[1:35:37] You guys are coming up with

[1:35:37] yours. I

[1:35:39] ll come up with mine.

[1:35:41] Um, one of the things that says

[1:35:43] multifamily housing is that

[1:35:45] just higher density housing,

[1:35:48] like townhomes or truly for

[1:35:50] plexus and multifamily.

[1:35:54] Um, the multifamily, um, it

[1:35:54] would depend upon what the

[1:35:56] applicant proposes. Um,

[1:35:58] multifamily would cover

[1:36:01] attached units. Um, it

[1:36:01] s just

[1:36:01] it

[1:36:03] s not a traditional single

[1:36:04] family detached house.

[1:36:07] So MR. Becerra, he actually

[1:36:08] answered that question because

[1:36:11] I asked it was townhomes.

[1:36:11] Townhomes.

[1:36:13] So no fourplex I mean duplexes

[1:36:15] are find individually, but

[1:36:18] fourplex is any of those or no.

[1:36:19] Four packs. It

[1:36:20] s five acres and

[1:36:22] it comes down to ten, ten units

[1:36:24] per acre. Okay. So the density

[1:36:26] on the on the land that it

[1:36:26] s

[1:36:29] sitting on is quite low. But it

[1:36:30] is four packs and there are 50

[1:36:32] of them. But again, it

[1:36:32] s ten

[1:36:33] units per acre.

[1:36:34] Okay.

[1:36:41] Thank you. Thank you.

[1:36:44] Mine is more of a comment. I

[1:36:46] would encourage, uh, the city

[1:36:48] to to delay the application of

[1:36:49] the annexation of the islands.

[1:36:51] If we were to push this project

[1:36:54] forward just for the sake of,

[1:36:56] uh, giving more time to the

[1:36:58] residents and also for the sake

[1:37:00] of our police department to be

[1:37:02] able to properly prepare for

[1:37:04] for the annexation, because

[1:37:07] they will have to probably add

[1:37:14] more force to it.

[1:37:21] Any other comments? Questions?

[1:37:23] Okay. At this time, uh, MAY

[1:37:24] please have a reading of the

[1:37:26] resolution.

[1:37:29] Resolution number sb, pc 11

[1:37:32] 2026 a resolution of the

[1:37:33] Planning Commission of the City

[1:37:35] of Simi Valley recommending to

[1:37:38] the City Council approval of

[1:37:43] annexation. Annex 0077 General

[1:37:48] Plan Amendment gpa 0073. Zone

[1:37:53] change z Dash s 0613 plan

[1:37:55] Development permit pd Dash

[1:38:00] s-105 four. Tentative map tt

[1:38:04] Dash 5658. Dash a and

[1:38:08] Development Agreement d a 2026

[1:38:12] 00012. Annex and subdivide an

[1:38:16] approximately 160.32 acre site

[1:38:18] for a 207 unit residential

[1:38:22] development consisting of 157

[1:38:25] single family residences, 50

[1:38:27] multifamily units, and open

[1:38:28] space located between the

[1:38:30] northern terminus of First

[1:38:32] Street and the intersection of

[1:38:34] Anchor Road and Falcon Street,

[1:38:36] and annexation of County Island

[1:38:42] properties. Annex, 2024 0001

[1:38:45] Associated Pre Zoning z.

[1:38:50] S-20240005 and adopt an

[1:38:52] Environmental Impact Report and

[1:38:54] mitigation, monitoring and

[1:38:58] Reporting Program.

[1:39:00] Okay. The chair will now

[1:39:02] entertain a motion.

[1:39:04] I move to adopt a resolution

[1:39:05] recommending to the City

[1:39:08] Council approval. Approval of

[1:39:17] annex 0077 gpa 0073 z 0613 bds,

[1:39:25] 1054 dt 5658 a Da 2026 0001.

[1:39:31] Annex 2024 0001 and z 2024 0005

[1:39:33] and the Environmental Impact

[1:39:34] Report and the mitigation,

[1:39:35] Monitoring and Reporting

[1:39:37] Program.

[1:39:40] Would you like to add, uh,

[1:39:42] recommendations to the council

[1:39:42] on that as well?

[1:39:45] Yes. Um, the recommendations

[1:39:49] were to, uh, delayed the, the,

[1:39:52] the, um, annexation as much as

[1:39:54] possible is can I within what

[1:39:56] is allowed, uh, of the rest of

[1:39:58] the islands.

[1:40:00] That sounds about right.

[1:40:00] Okay.

[1:40:04] And, uh, to investigate the

[1:40:06] ability to negotiate with waste

[1:40:09] management and, uh, the permits

[1:40:12] for, for future building. Is

[1:40:13] that is that correct?

[1:40:15] Yeah, that worked for me.

[1:40:18] Anything else?

[1:40:19] I think you got the big items

[1:40:20] there.

[1:40:22] Thank you. I second.

[1:40:29] We have a second. Um. I move,

[1:40:35] okay, here we go. Uh. We now

[1:40:48] have a call for the vote.

[1:40:51] The vote passes unanimously.

[1:40:53] Okay. Uh, there is no appeal

[1:40:55] period for the annexation

[1:40:57] general plan amendment, free

[1:40:59] zone plan, development permit,

[1:41:00] tentative map and development

[1:41:02] agreement. And the items will

[1:41:04] proceed to the City Council

[1:41:04] with the Planning Commission

[1:41:05] s

[1:41:14] recommendations. Okay. Uh,

[1:41:15] we

[1:41:18] re now at, uh, proceed to

[1:41:19] the next item, which is new

[1:41:21] business. And at this time,

[1:41:24] under 11, uh, there are no new

[1:41:27] business items. Um, oral

[1:41:29] communications and reports to

[1:41:32] staff. Have anything to report?

[1:41:34] Yes. Chairperson Kennedy,

[1:41:35] members of the commission. And,

[1:41:37] uh, just want to state that,

[1:41:39] um, again, for the audience,

[1:41:41] the city council hearing has

[1:41:43] not yet been scheduled, so

[1:41:45] please, um, keep an eye on the

[1:41:47] city council website. You can

[1:41:48] reach out to staff, including

[1:41:50] Elizabeth, myself. As far as an

[1:41:52] update to, uh, scheduling of

[1:41:54] that item so we can go through

[1:41:55] this process at the city

[1:41:56] council level. So that

[1:41:57] ll be

[1:41:59] our next step. And staff is no

[1:42:01] other comments on any other

[1:42:06] items.

[1:42:10] Any comments from staff? Okay.

[1:42:12] Uh, do any commissioners have

[1:42:13] anything to report?

[1:42:15] I just want to thank, uh,

[1:42:16] Planning commissioner from 1000

[1:42:23] Oaks from the for the book.

[1:42:24] And, uh, I

[1:42:25] d like to thank all

[1:42:27] the participants tonight. I

[1:42:29] know this is educational for a

[1:42:31] lot of us, uh, with the Lafco

[1:42:33] stuff. So, uh, thank you for,

[1:42:36] uh, participating in this

[1:42:40] process. Um, now we

[1:42:41] re on to,

[1:42:43] uh, mobile home rent mediation

[1:42:44] board. Does staff has anything

[1:42:45] to report?

[1:42:46] No items tonight.

[1:42:48] A tree advisory board. Does

[1:42:50] staff have anything to report?

[1:42:52] No items tonight.

[1:42:54] All right. Uh, this concludes

[1:42:55] the meeting of AUGUST 26th,

[1:42:57] 2026. Next scheduled meeting

Planning Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript