The Planning Commission meeting
of AUGUST 26th, 26, 2026 will
come to order. Ladies and
gentlemen, please rise and face
the flag for the Pledge of
Allegiance. Please remove your
hats for head coverings.
Civilians, please place your
hand over your heart. Veterans
and active military duty
personnel not in uniform MAY
render military Hanssler ready
again..
I pledge allegiance to the the
line of the United States of
America and to the Republic for
which it stands. One nation
under GOD, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
Thank you. Uh, the Secretary
will call roll.
Commissioner Mann.
Present.
Commissioner Tolson here.
Commissioner Christmann here.
Vice chairperson. Rice here.
Chairperson.
Kennedy here.
Here. There it is. Uh, MAY I
have a motion for approval of
the agenda? I move.
To approve the agenda as
presented.
I
ll second it.
Unless there are any
objections. The agenda stands
approved. Approval of the
minutes. Uh, there are no
minutes to approve. That
s a
good quick one. Declaration of
conflict. The Secretary will
read the declaration of
conflict.
If any member of the Planning
Commission MAY have a conflict
of interest, or any reason why
that member should abstain from
consideration of any matter on
this agenda, he or she should
so declare at this time.
Seeing none, we continue on.
This is the time allotted for
public statements or comments
on all items other than the
public hearing items. Is there
one anyone in the chamber
wishing to be heard? Okay, next
item correspondence. Is there
any correspondence from the
Deputy Director City planner?
Uh, yes. Chairperson. Kennedy.
We have one, uh, supplemental
staff report for agenda.
Item ten a1 regarding a
correspondence received on the
North Canyons uh, development
project that
s been provided to
you, posted on the website, and
copies were placed out in the
lobby.
Okay. Next item is consent
calendar. There are no consent
calendar items. Next item.
Continued business. This is the
time and place set for a
continued public hearing on the
consideration of annex 0077
gpa. Dash 0073 z s 0613 pd s
1054 t 5658-a. D a dash
20260001 and annex 20240001 and
z dash s 2024. And the
Environmental Impact Report eir
and mitigation, Monitoring and
Reporting Program. Therefore,
are there any ex-parte
communications to report?
Go.
First I had a meeting with a
developer and um, we had a
conversation about the project.
I also talked to uh, or
listened to a couple of
residents that live in
unincorporated areas of
different, different
unincorporated areas.
i also had a zoom meeting with
the developer and the discuss
the project.
Uh, I had a meeting with a
developer as well via zoom.
I had a scheduled meeting with
the developer, but that got
canceled because of a family
emergency. So.
Along those same lines, I was
out of state on vacation and
had a zoom meeting with the
developer. And, uh, MR. Becerra
was on that call as well. Next
item. MAY we have an oral
report by staff on this matter?
Uh, yes. Good evening,
Chairperson Kennedy. Members of
the Planning Commission. Yes.
This is a continued public
hearing on the North Canyon
Ranch development application.
And, uh, associated
entitlements, including the
proposed annexation of that
site and the discussion on the
related island annexations.
This was continued from 2025.
And tonight
s item is a
planning Commission hearing.
And this would be a
recommendation on the action to
the city council. Any, um, any
final approval of the project
does not occur tonight. And
this process would be gone
through again at the city
council level. So just to let
everyone in the audience know
that this there
s no final
action tonight. If this does
move forward to the City
council, uh, proper public
noticing will also occur when
that date is scheduled. So I
ll
turn it over the presentation
to Senior Planner Elizabeth
Richardson.
Okay. Good evening. Tonight we
will be reviewing the proposed
North Canyon Ranch in
annexation for a new 207 unit
subdivision. There are three
components of the project being
reviewed tonight. The North
Canyon Ranch subdivision,
annexation of the North Canyon
Ranch site into the city
limits, and the annexation of
seven of the nine county
islands. We will review each of
these further in tonight
s
presentation. The North Canyon
Ranch Project site is project
is a request to subdivide a 160
acre site for 207 unit
subdivision consisting of 157
single family residences, 50
multifamily units and open
space. The proposal requires a
general plan Amendment three
zone plan development permit,
tentative map, and a
development agreement.
Tonight
s review will only be
for the overall site layout,
building designs of the homes,
landscaping, site improvements
and retaining wall design will
be reviewed under a future plan
development permit modification.
North Canyon Ranch was first
scheduled for a public hearing
on JANUARY 8th, 2025. However,
due to a lack of a quorum, the
project was continued to
JANUARY 22nd, 2025. On JANUARY
22nd, the public hearing was
opened and four members of the
public spoke. The meeting was
continued again to allow staff
additional time to study the
fiscal impacts of the project
and negotiate a development
agreement. The project tonight
was noticed for public hearing
by placing a public hearing
notice signs at First Street
and Falcon Drive, running a
public hearing notice ad in the
newspaper, mailing postcards to
property owners in a 300 foot
radius of the North Canyon
Ranch project, and to property
owners in the seven affected
county islands. Noticing was
completed 20 days in advance of
tonight
s meeting to comply
with state law requiring 20 day
notice for projects with a zone
change. The project is located
north of the Simi Valley town
center, between First Street
and the intersection of Erin jr
Road and Falcon Street, and is
located outside the city
limits, but is within the
sphere of influence and the
city urban Restriction
boundary, also known as the
curb. The site is currently
vacant and portions of the site
have been previously disturbed
with grading, unimproved dirt
roads and placement of dirt
from the Simi Valley town
center. Construction. Existing
vegetation consists of coastal
sage scrub, small patches of
cactus, highly disturbed
non-native grass habitats, and
riparian scrub. In some
locations along the drainage
courses and debris basins. The
tree report for the project
identified 16 trees on the
property and most of the
natural habitat on the site was
disturbed by the domestic
animal grazing activities. This
is a view of the project site
from the end of Falcon Street,
looking west, and this is a
view of the site from the end
of First Street looking
northeast. The city
s general
plan has designated. The North
Canyon site as medium density
residential. Moderate density
residential and open space. In
2005, a general plan
pre-screened was reviewed by
the City Council and granted
authorization to proceed with
an application for a General
Plan amendment. The proposed
General Plan Amendment will not
change the existing land use
designations, but will instead
redistribute them to follow the
boundary of the proposed
development. Single family
residential will be located in
the medium density residential,
land use and multifamily
residential units will be in
the moderate density.
Residential land use. The North
Canyon Project site is
currently zoned County Open
Space. As part of the
annexation, the city will zone
the project site to residential
medium and residential moderate
density and open space.
Consistent with the project
layout, the residential medium
zone allows single family
residences, while the
residential moderate zone
allows both single family and
multifamily residential
development for the North
Canyon Ranch project, the
single family homes will be
located in the residential
medium zone, and the
multifamily residential will be
located in the Residential
Moderate zone. The project site
is proposed to be subdivided
into 157 single family
residential lots and 50
multi-family residential units.
The multifamily residential
will either be senior housing
or 25% affordable per the
conditions. Proposed
development will disturb
approximately 90 acres of the
site to create lots ranging in
size between 5000ft and
15,829ft in area. The project
will extend Falcon Street from
First Street to r&r road and
the General Plan Mobility
section has identified this
connection as an unbuilt minor
arterial roadway, and by
connecting the road, the
project further complies with
the General Plan. Two new one
acre parks will also be
included in the site identified
here on the map, and site
greeting will not result in
soil being impacted. The
remainder of the site will
remain dedicated. Open space.
The project site will be
located within the Hillside
Performance Standards or Https
boundary. The purpose of the
house is to preserve the
hillside areas, promote single
family housing in the hillside
and slope areas. Less than 20%
maintain open space and scenic
resources and prohibit most
grading on slopes over 20%.
Residential density for
projects in the house is not
calculated using the underlying
zoning, and is instead based on
slope density using the
steepness of the land where the
development is proposed to
calculate the allowed number of
units. On this map, the area
where slopes range between 0
and 20% are shown in green,
purple and red colors, and the
area that is gray or slopes
over 20%. Based on the analysis
of the slope map, the project
can accommodate the 207 units.
The project site is located
within the state and Ventura
County Fire Department
s very
high fire hazard zone.
Development of the site
requires the fire department
s
approval of site plans for fire
protection features, including
adequate fire apparatus access,
roadway widths, turnaround
areas, placement of fire
hydrants, installation of the
fire sprinklers inside the
houses, and establishment of
fuel modification zones for
brush clearance. The fire
department has reviewed the
tentative map for fire safety
to ensure it conforms with the
applicable codes, and the map
was modified in response to
fire Department comments,
including removal of two lots,
a fire protection plan and fuel
modification plan has
preliminary been reviewed and
approved by the fire
Department. Together, they are
designed to minimize fire
hazards and risks that MAY
threaten life and property in
the future. The fire department
will also review the final
landscaping plans to ensure
that all plant materials comply
with the fire department
regulations. A unique design
feature of the project is a 60
foot high wall retaining wall.
The wall is proposed to be
located on the southwest area
of the site, adjacent to the
First Street extension. The
wall will be stepped, with two
different sections being 30ft
tall and a ten foot wide step
for drainage and landscaping.
The purpose of the wall is to
hold back the slope created by
cutting in the First Street
extension. The wall is a
notable feature of the project.
However, the design the design
still requires final
engineering design and
approval. Staff has discussed
with the applicant
opportunities to obtain an
easement with the adjacent
property owner, which could
result in a design that would
not require such a tall
retaining wall. To develop the
North Canyon Ranch site. The
160 acre property and seven of
the nine county islands must be
annexed into the city limits by
Ventura Lafco. Annexation of
the North Canyon site is
required because the site is
larger than 40 acres, and by
annexing North Canyon Ranch,
Lafco policy also requires the
annexation of seven of the nine
county islands. The acronym
Lafco stands for stands for
Local Agency Formation
Commission, and is a state
agency that has the sole
authority over changes to the
city boundaries and special
districts. Lafco to discourage
sprawl and encourage orderly
development and establish the
sphere of influence for each
city or agency. To initiate the
annexation of North Canyon
s
ranch. The City Council must
first recommend the city file
an application with Lafco.
Next, the city will formally
apply for annexation of the
North Canyon Ranch project site
with Lafco, and then they will
review the application at a
public hearing, where the board
will either approve or deny the
annexation request. In 2000,
the California State
Legislature significantly
changed Lafco policy as part of
the local Government
Reorganization Act of 2000. As
part of this new policy, the
state legislature added a
requirement for cities to annex
county islands and removing
Lafco discretion. Ventura Lafco
adopted their island annexation
policy in 2003 and requires
when cities annex sites larger
than 40 acres, the islands be
annexed as well. The island
annexation application will be
submitted to Lafco after the
North Canyon Ranch annexation
is approved.
Elizabeth. Sorry for
interrupting. We appear to have
technical difficulties with
regard to the live stream. Is
that accurate?
I mean, it
s everything on my
end, although I.
We
ll take a brief pause.
If we could take a ten minute
pause to see if we can rectify
that. I apologize for
interrupting.
The video on YouTube.
MR. CHAIRMAN, members of the
commission. I think we have a
Granicus live stream. It
appears there
s a technical
difficulty with YouTube itself.
As long as we have a live feed
through the city
s website or
get to move forward, it
s
obviously up to the commission.
If you want to move forward. My
suggestion would be the backup
for five minutes in your
presentation and repeat that
part of it so that at least we
have that going out. Um, but
I
m happy to answer any
questions or.
I
m on the website. Just go to
the Planning Commission. I
m
looking at the website. Okay.
So your voice just came through
on spectrum.
Okay. Great. So you
re you
re
clear to move forward if you if
you so desire.
Yeah I concur. Uh, shall we
back up five minutes in that
presentation just to make sure
that we
re covered?
Yeah, I
m going to pick up
where we start with the
annexation. Okay. Does that
sound good?
Yeah. Annexation. That
s good.
Break point.
I guess.
Okay.
Yeah. We still need our video
feed on the screens here.
No, no. Yes.
Sorry.
Okay. So, yeah, you are coming
through on spectrum because I
just read your voice through
the tv up by my house. So
spectrum is working. Yeah. Here
we go. Live again. All the
life. Okay. Granicus is working
or not?
All right. Can we get our
screens back up here at the
dais there on. Still in recess.
Hey, the good news is the air
conditioning is working right?
Yeah.
Right.
That
s.
So as we see ourself.
Okay, okay.
It looks like the reboot has
occurred. So we
re going to go
ahead and pick this back up at
the annexation slide.
I just said it
s not showing up
on.
Granicus..
So things.
Yeah yeah we gotta reboot up
here.
Can here. But it
s still saying
recess.
All right. We
re good.
To me. Okay. Okay. You ready?
Okay.
Okay. Looks like we
re on a
restart. We
re going to kick it
back to the slide with the
annexation and go forward from
there. Thank you all.
Up. Now, on that one right
there.
Excellent. Okay.
Thank you. Everybody.
Okay.
To develop the North Canyon
Ranch site, the property and
seven of the county islands
must be annexed into the city
limits by Ventura Lafco
annexation of the of the North
Canyon site is required because
the site is larger than 40
acres. And by annexing North
Canyons Ranch. Lafco policy
also requires annexation of
seven of the nine county
islands. The acronym Lafco
stands for Local Area Formation
Commission. Local Agency
Formation Commission, and is a
state agency that has a sole
authority over changes to city
boundaries and special
districts. Lafco is discourage
sprawl and encourage orderly
development and establish the
sphere of influence for each
city or agency to initiate the
annexation of North Canyon
Ranch. The City Council must
first recommend the city file
an application with Lafco.
Next, the city will formally
apply for annexation of the
North Canyon Ranch project site,
and then Lafco will review. The
will then review the
application, and at a public
hearing, the board will either
approve or deny the annexation
request. In 2000, the
California State Legislature
significantly changed Lafco
policy as part of the Local
Government Reorganization Act
of 2000. As part of this new
policy, the state legislature
added a requirement for cities
to annex county islands and
removed Lafco discretion.
Ventura Lafco adopted their
island annexation policy in
2003, and requires when cities
annex sites larger than 40
acres, the islands be annexed
as well. The island annexation
application will be submitted
to Lafco after the North Canyon
Ranch annexation is approved.
This map shows the location of
the seven county islands to be
annexed. County Islands six and
nine are crossed out and are
not part of the of this
application. Due to their size
in the future, these count
these county islands six and
nine could seek annexation
individually for future
development projects. A total
of 437 lots will be annexed,
with a total area of
approximately 302 acres.
Existing uses in the annexation
areas are primarily single
family residential.
Unincorporated county. Island
properties are zoned in
anticipation of being annexed
into the city. County. Island
eight. The Sinaloa Lake area,
however, was not pre zoned
previously. The pre zoning
considers the existing
activities of the site that are
both residential and open
space, as well as animal
keeping activities. Island
eight will be pre zoned to
residential estate with farm
animal overlay, residential
very low, residential low and
open space. The farm Animal
overlay will continue to allow
the animal raising activities
allowed by the county. After
the county Islands are annexed
into the city. Residents will
experience some changes to the
services they currently
receive. Law enforcement will
transfer from Ventura County
Sheriff
s Department to Simi
Valley Police Department.
Building permits will be
reviewed and issued by the City
of Simi Valley, and code
enforcement will be transferred
to the City of Simi Valley as
well. However, some services
won
t change. Ventura County
Fire Department will continue
to respond to calls. Waterworks
district eight will continue to
provide water. If your property
is currently on septic, the
city will not require you to
connect to city sewer until
there is a health safety issue
or a resident builds a new
single family residence, sb9
unit or an Adu. Preexisting
permitted uses allowed by the
county will continue to be
allowed, including animal
keeping. The project was
continued in 2025 because of
concerns related to the
financial impacts of annexing
the county islands into the
city. A fiscal impact analysis
was prepared for the annexation
and found without the North
Canyon Ranch development, the
county islands will generate an
annual deficit of $142,000.
This will eventually be offset
by North Canyon Ranch
development, which will
generate an annual surplus of
$1,229 per residence. The city
and developer have negotiated a
development agreement to offset
the deficit. The development
agreement offsetting the
deficit generated by the island
annexation with payment of
$141,884 annually. Once, once.
North Kane is once annexed
until North Kane
s is fully
developed. The developer will
also provide public benefits,
including the extension of
Falcon Street, constructing a
fire access road, dedicating
land for public trails, and
paying $150,000 each to the
public arts program and the
library building improvements.
At the JANUARY 22nd Planning
Commission meeting, the public
comments asked the following
questions. As we discussed.
Lafco policy requires island
annexation of North Canyon
Ranch. Annexation is approved
and a fiscal impact analysis
was prepared to study the
fiscal, the financial impacts
of island annexation. The
annexed homes will not count
towards the city
s arena. Water
for the project will be
supplied by Waterworks District
eight, who have stated that
5.6% of the city
s water
surplus will be used by the
development. The eir identified
potential bus stops on Falcon
Street, which will be further
studied and determined if
necessary as a project
progresses. No traffic calming
devices will be installed on
Milestone Avenue in response to
North Canyon Ranch development,
and Milestone Avenue is a
public street, and in order to
install gates, the streets
would have to be abandoned and
privatized. In eir was prepared
for the project, which studied
both the North Canyon Ranch and
the island. Annexation. The
purpose of the of an eir is to
disclose the potential
environmental impacts of the
project. All feasible
mitigation measures that could
reduce, that could reduce or
eliminate those impacts, and
suggest and investigate
alternatives to the project,
which MAY be environmentally
superior to the project. As
proposed. The city determined
the project MAY have a
significant impact on the on
the environment and prepared an
eir. Mitigation measures are
provided to lessen the impacts,
to less than, less than
significant, and are contained
in the mitigation, monitoring
and Reporting Program. Our
Sequoia consultant, Laura
Kaufman, is here tonight to
answer questions regarding the
eir process and mitigation
measures. To approve the North
Canyon Ranch Project. Findings
must be made that the project
is consistent with the General
Plan and Simi Valley Municipal
Code. There are no impacts to
the public health, safety or
welfare. The project is
consistent with the Residential
Design Guidelines Subdivision
Map Act and Hillside
Performance Standards. If the
Planning Commission chooses to
deny the project tonight, they
must find the project is
inconsistent with the findings
contained in the resolution.
And staff recommends the
Planning Commission make a
recommendation of approval to
the City Council of the
Annexation General Plan
Amendment Zone Change Plan,
development permit. Tentative
map development Agreement and
eir and the County Island
Annexation and Free Zone. And
this concludes my presentation
and staff
s available for
questions.
Uh.
Any commissioner questions of
staff?
Thank you. Okay.
I
m gonna start. Um, can we
explain a little bit more? What
would be the financial impact
on the city of the project was
to be improved, approved. And
if the developer doesn
t start
developing the project in a
timely manner. But we already
are in the process of annexing
the unincorporated.
So the fiscal impact analysis
that
s attached to the Da, um,
it identified that the island
annexations will cost the city
$142,000. And based upon that
number, the Da was negotiated
requiring that. Until North
Canyon Ranch is fully
developed, the developer will
be paying money into the city
funds to offset that deficit
incurred by annexing the
islands.
So what would be the timeline
for the annexations? Like what?
How would that happen if if we
were to approve this, if the
city Council was to approve.
What the timeline would be to
the island annexation?
Yeah.
Um, based upon the timeline
with, um, with Lafco, it could,
um, the North Canyon Ranch
process could take
approximately over a year. And
then there
s ways to extend it.
There
s time extensions that
that can be granted before they
have to annex the island.
Annexations. It could be
approximately five years before
we annex the islands.
Thank you. And if we were I
m
not saying that that
s going to
happen, but if we were to have
a Runkle Canyon situation, what
would be the long term effect
to the city?
You want to define.
The.
Rock Canyon situation?
Oh, yes. Uh, yes. That is, uh,
a 20 year delay with many
extensions and not the project
was not being finished. I asked
a question.
Can you help answer that.
Question.
MR. CHAIRMAN? Members of the
commission. So this is a very
different situation than a
project that happened 20 years
ago. Uh, what was built into
the development agreement and
the developers agreed to is to
ensure that the city is
protected and that we don
t
have a similar situation. The
overall term of the Da is 15
years. Uh, once building
permits, start getting issued,
there
s a six month period
within which building actually
has to commence. After those
building permits are issued,
and failure to do so is a
material breach of the actual
development agreement, which
means that
s going to be in
front of the City Council for
review at that point. Uh, with
regard to the financial aspects
of things, the developer has
agreed to provide a surety,
meaning a bond or letter of
credit, some other type, form
of surety to make sure that the
annexation happens in a timely
manner. I
ll say with regard to
annexation in a timely manner,
sir, I usually look at this
way, but, uh, the, uh, lafco is
actually required by state law
to process the annexation
application very quickly. This
is a application process,
annexation process whereby the
city is actually asking for the
annexation, which means that
under state law, Lafco waives
the protest proceedings, has to
approve the project. And there
are very few opportunities to
stop the process for annexation
under these circumstances. All
of this to say that we took a
lot of time to to negotiate the
impact fee that
s been
described by staff and on your
on your PowerPoint. And also
it
s built into the development
agreement. So from a legal
standpoint, I don
t think that
the concerns that have been
raised about other projects
within the city will be
replicated. And certainly I
know that the city council is,
uh, well aware of of other
issues with other developments.
So I don
t think that that is
something that will happen.
Again.
Thank you. I was not saying
it
s going to happen. I was
just making sure that we have a
plan in place.
Yes. And this development
agreement is very different
than any others that have come
before, either the Planning
Commission for recommendations
to the City Council or for the
City Council itself to consider.
I have more questions, but if
somebody else wants.
To read Your Honor roll.
I
m on a roll. Um, I do, I do
want to bring up the tough, uh,
traffic question. Um, so, uh,
my, my question and I did ask
it before if this development
was to be happening at the same
time as the, uh, Lost Canyon
development, what would be the
traffic impact on, on that area?
Thank you.
We
ll bring up Justin Link,
principal traffic engineer.
I apologize to anybody coming
after me who has to go over
this. Uh, good evening,
commissioners. Uh, that is, uh,
that
s a tricky question to
answer because our either the
traffic study or traffic model
doesn
t necessarily take into
account conflicting
construction. It is possible, I
suppose, that we can limit
construction traffic to certain
areas. So if North Canyons were
to progress at the same time
that we would limit
construction traffic to, say,
First Street, as opposed to
using arranger, I don
t suspect
that there
s going to be a lot
of construction traffic using
arranger from Lost Canyons
because of the distance between
them, so there shouldn
t be too
much interactivity. Again,
that
s pure speculation on my
part, but there would be the
potential. I would think that
we could figure out a way with
a developer to place the
construction traffic closer to
where it needs to go.
Thank you. Does anybody else
have traffic questions?
No.
Thank you.
You go ahead. You go ahead for
a little bit.
I have no questions for staff
at this time.
Olson, ma
am.
No, sir. Okay.
That being said, then we will
open the public testimony
portion of the hearing. And for
that, would the applicant like
to present the project?
Just keep right here, okay?
Okay.
So we have Glenn and.
Susan.
Glenn, Glenn and Susie are
presenting. Okay?
Yeah. Chair Kennedy I
ll I
ll
be presenting. And then as we
need to if there are questions
that I can
t answer, we
ll
bring up the appropriate folks.
Thank you.
Glenn. So, uh, Chair Kennedy
and members of the commission,
thank you very much for the
time to present on this, uh,
what I believe is a beautiful
project coming to Simi Valley.
Um, and we
re grateful to be
back in front of you, I think
now, for the sixth time since
2025, um, which I
m not sure is
a record, but could be, uh, and
we want to thank the staff.
City staff has done a great job
working with us to develop the
development agreement to make
sure the fiscal impacts are
addressed in this project, and
to bring a beautiful project
here back to Simi Valley. Um,
as you know that tonight
s vote
is about the merits of this
project. Uh, not about the
lafco process, but it
s hard to
separate the two, uh, because
lafco and state law has
interconnected those, as staff
has pointed out. So we wanted
to get into a few things about
the project itself. Um, let me
see. I
m one more ahead. Uh,
the North County, uh, or I
m
sorry, the North Canyon Ranch
solves what Lafco has been
dealing with for the last 25
years. Um, that is to address
the county islands, um, as some
of you know, I
m. I
m a owner
of a house in one of the
islands. I have a house on
Avenida Simi, right behind the
Simi Valley Hospital, with a 60
year old septic tank. Um, just
just to say, uh, the way this,
this project has been, um, put
together, it addresses the
financial shortfalls that that
the city was anticipating by a
lafco, uh, directed annexation
of the islands. Uh, it
actually, you know, addresses
the problem so well that it
creates a surplus, additional
monies for the city, uh, to be
able to support the rest of the
city operations after the
project is fully built out. Uh,
once the project is built out,
there should be, uh, it
s
anticipated that there
ll be
over $100,000 of additional
money going back to the city.
Uh, project history. Um, the
project has always been
intended to be developed. This
piece of land, it is in the
city
s general plan, and it is
in the city
s sphere of
influence. The zoning that that
that was previously put on, it
actually allows for around 260
homes. And we
re building 207
homes, um, which is a lighter
density. And, and we
re
providing a mix of houses, uh,
from 1900ft up to 3400ft as I
as if I
m remembering my my
specific details. And, uh, and
lot sizes, uh, up into the
15,005 thousand range. So the
eir has been completed and with
an extensive analysis led by
the city and their staff, their
consultant,
And we can, uh, and it found
that no significant issues
arose, that none of the city
s
services or infrastructure has
to be upsized to meet the needs
of this project, which is a,
you know, is important because
that means the city had already
planned on this, uh, in the
future. And met is meeting
those future needs. Uh, we
actually also participated in
the community outreach. We went
because this project straddles
two different neighborhood
councils, Council one and
three. You know, we went before
both of those and received a
support from both of those
neighborhood councils. And as
you know, the, uh, from when
the town center was built, some
of that, some of the the dirt
was moved up to this project
and they had created some
super, super pads. And those
pads were certified by the
city, um, for this development.
I want to thank the staff
because they went through all
the benefits of this project,
but is as you can see, the
project overall size is 160
acres. Uh, we
re building on
39% of that. Uh, the the
project itself offers a wide,
wide variety of housing. Um,
and 40% of the site will will
be left undisturbed and will be
used for conservation. Uh, the
project is going to, um. The
ranchers see to be recreation.
And Park District is also going
to be receiving the open space,
uh, along with some trails. And
then in addition to that, a
fire access road, so that if a
fire does happen in the
backside, they
ll be accessed
by the fire department, which
conveniently is just on the
corner of the street that
s
going to be connected. And so
we think that
s a plus for
everybody, including, uh, these
residents and people that live
down on First Street. So, um,
the fire protection and the
connectivity benefits of
benefits that we
ve just talked
about do connect and fulfill
the city
s desired goal to
connect First Street to Falcon
and to connect the First Street
area to the big Sky area. It
you know, if something were to
happen at the freeway on air
and for some reason arranger
was blocked, it would allow the
big Sky residents an additional
way out, not just on top of
Canyon, uh, which is going to
be receiving some nice road
improvements in the future. Uh,
those road improvements are
already underway, but also
right here off of First Street.
Um, there is again, the fire
fuel mod modifications that are
going in because of the new
state law. And this being in a
high fire zone. Uh, you know,
creates that 200 foot buffer
which helps everybody,
including the big sky area. But
on top of that, all of these
houses, including the
multi-family houses, will be,
uh, sprinklers. They
ll all
have fire sprinklers in them. A
few other benefits. There
ll be
$8.2 million paid to the city
and the school district. Um,
based on impact fees. Uh, the
direct financial contribution
of $150,000 for the public arts
and for the library building
fund. Um, and and in a surplus
to the city, even after the
annexation takes place. So I
will wrap it up there and be
happy to answer any questions
that you might have. And, uh,
and if I can
t do it, I have
got a good team back here that
can.
All right.
Any questions of the applicant?
I if you turn around that
question, you said lower
density.
I
m sorry.
I can
t hear.
Multiple families. This is a
meeting.
Yeah. I
m happy to answer his
question.
I
m sorry.
Yeah.
Have you submitted a speaker
card, sir?
Yes.
I
m sorry. Did you submit a
speaker card? Yes. Yeah. Okay.
And I
m happy to answer his
question.
Well, we
ll get to it in the
right order here. So. Okay.
Thank you. Um, so there
s. Do
we have any questions of the
applicant?
I just have one question. And
MR. Becerra, how far along are
you in the process? Have you
talked to the neighboring
property owner about the
possibility of, um, possibly
not having the retaining wall
or modifying the retaining wall
in some way?
Yeah.
The property owner, our
property owner and the
adjoining property owner have
been discussing an easement
for. I think it
s been ten
years now. Uh, quite a long
time. Uh, we would love that.
Uh, because even though it
would cost us money to buy that
easement, uh, to build that
wall would be quite expensive,
right? Um, those walls are not
uncommon. They happen all the
time. The way we
re designing
it, the city staff with Brent
seminar summer and, you know,
and the other staff members
have worked for years to
develop what
s being proposed
now because we haven
t been
able to move that that along
that process with the adjoining
property owner, because you
are.
Still talking to him as what
I
m. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Any other commissioners?
I guess I got one. So the
financial impact or the benefit
of the city, I thought one of
the slides that you just ended
with at 250, but a prior slide,
if I remember correctly, said
120.
Yeah. Well, the reason that
s
the difference between the
amount of money that the amount
of excess cash that our project
will develop will provide to
the city, minus what it
ll cost
the city. So it
s 250 total.
But when you separate out the
cost of the annexation, then it
drops it down to 112.
Correct. Thank you.
I have a question,
Commissioner. Um, how, uh how
much? How do you envision
multifamily? Like, what? If you
can describe it, like, are they
townhomes? Are they for Plexus
Duplex?
Was.
Two sports. Homes for sale..
Needs to speak into the
microphone.
Yeah. Thank you. I
m sorry.
There are two story there.
Townhomes and everything that
we
re proposing up is there is
for sale. And just to address
the question, the reason that I
said that it
s lower density,
it
s lower it
s less housing
that is than was previously,
you know, than they previously
thought could go up there. You
know, the zoning allows for a
roughly 260 housing units, and
we
re only proposing 207. So
when I say lower density, I
don
t mean one acre lots. I
mean less housing than could go
up there.
I have one more that connects
to that that, uh, I know it
s
early in the process, but are
you leaning more towards the
senior or affordable? There was
a one of the things is for for
multifamily, it
s 25%
affordable or 100% senior.
Yeah. Towards the.
We
re leaning towards senior.
Any more.
Questions.
And we
re not going anywhere.
So after the residents have a
chance to speak, we
re happy to
come back up and address any of
those questions that that can
come up afterwards.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Okay. So now we have speaker
cards. And, uh, the first one
is Mary Earl eral uh, who does
not wish to speak, who
s in
opposition. And then, in order
of speaker cards here, uh, is
Emily, is it Walker?
Walker.
Walker. Emily. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you.
Emily. Walker, PRESIDENT, North
Hills Homeowners association.
There are many reasons why the
North Canyon Ranch project
should be denied. We in the
North Hills Homeowners
Association adamantly opposed
the North Canyon Ranch project
and the proposed annexation of
county islands. If built, the
North Canyon Ranch Project will
be a major encroachment into
wildlife areas. More invasion
into wildlife areas cause more
wild animals to invade areas of
human habitation, as there will
be building in the hills with
the North Canyon Ranch Project.
There will be increased risk of
fire danger. Southern
California is prone to
wildfires, and the risk for
wildfires in the hills is
greatly increased, and this
area in the hills is a high
risk fire area. It takes a
tremendous amount of water to
build anything, especially a
development of such a massive
size as the North Canyon Ranch
project. Also, once the
development is completed, the
people who will live in the
development will use water.
Currently, there is way too
much traffic in Simi Valley.
This development will increase
traffic considerably. Many
people live in Simi Valley to
escape the urban sprawl of
other areas. They want to live
in an area with less traffic,
less building, less density and
in general, a less hectic
lifestyle. If approved, the
North Canyon Ranch project will
create more congestion and will
add to urban sprawl. Residents
of the county islands want to
remain unincorporated,
retaining their county status.
They want to remain semi-rural
with large lots and animal
keeping. They do not want to
lose the animal overlay. If
annexed into the city, there
will be more and stricter rules
and regulations. Also, there
will be higher property taxes,
and other taxes will be higher.
Zoning MAY change and some
permits will cost more in the
city. For example, a permit to
install a new gas furnace costs
$150 more in the city than in
the county. Also, trash
collection is more expensive in
the city than in the county. In
conclusion, please reject the
North Canyon Ranch project and
the proposed annexation of the
county islands. These are very
bad ideas.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Annette Cheney.
Cheney and I live in.
The Sinaloa Lake area. That
would be, I believe, eight. Um,
I neither a lawyer nor a real
estate agent, so I can just
talk in general. My house was
built by my husband in the
early 60s. It took him seven
years without any kind of a
bank loan. Um, he did a
wonderful job, and they all
passed everything that he did.
Um, I would like to continue to
live there, but when what I see
is eventually going to happen
with the annexation, and they
say we can still have our farm
animals, that
s not going to
continue. I know once it
becomes city, the rules are
going to change. Maybe not for
me, but when I do go to sell or
my children go to sell, we
won
t be able to have the
variety. We
ll have the three
dogs and three cats and that
will be it. Um, the other thing
is, you said that, uh, about
sewers and things like that,
that that would not be changed.
I know it will be. We do not
have sidewalks or streetlights
or sewer. And I can see that
happening. Um, whether we have
to pay directly or our taxes go
way up to pay for it. Um, it
would be wonderful if we had
some kind of a paper that was
legitimate that would stay in
force forever, that we could
continue to have the animals,
not have those other amenities.
Uh, I like the trash service
that we have. It is cheaper
than waste management. I don
t
want to go back to that. My
husband passed two years ago.
My income is now half of what
it used to be. So what I
m
doing is struggling to stay
there. And I can see this is
going to make it more difficult
in the end. One other question.
Um, the development at the end
of, uh, uh, uh, arranger, i
think it was not arranger.
Sequoia. Um, I have friends
that live up in that
neighborhood. And they said
during that time there was so
much dust. Some of the people
got very sick. Um, this is at
our and and I, I know the way
the winds blow. How are they
going to do that? So we aren
t
going to have the dust flying
all over, which includes that,
um. Oh, it
s a fungus that you
get in your lungs. I forget
what it
s called, but I
m 87,
so I
m not going to remember
everything. Um. But I don
t
know what somebody said.
Was.
Am I am I done? Can I can I
keep talking? Okay. So, um,
anyway, uh, this is scary for
me and a number of my other
neighbors who are old or as old
as me and I. I don
t see any of
them here. It was a struggle
for me to get here, but I
needed to come. I, I would like
to save our area around Sinaloa
Lake and live the way we
ve
always lived. It
s just
beautiful. Um, I lived over in
the San Fernando Valley years
ago, and again, city. And there
were all these restrictions.
So, um, we
ve enjoyed all these
years with our grandchildren
and all the animals that we
ve
had. Um, I would like that to
continue, not just
grandfathered in for me, but
somehow, if you are, if we do
have to have that, that we can
still have a lot of those same
amenities without the fancy
stuff on the side, that
s going
to cost us a fortune. I think
I
m done. And I really liked
with this first lady, said MRS.
Walker. I can
t remember the
name already, but, uh, thank
you. I wish I could say more,
but I didn
t write anything
down.
Thank you.
The next speaker we have is
David Hardy.
And here I am. I knew instantly
what he was talking about with
density. But to me, density is
the number of cars that come
down township and swing down
reservoir. And just make nice.
So that
s what I consider to be
density. Anyway. Um. Uh, John
Tolson, Commissioner Tolson, I
heard you say Becerra, as you
on your zoom call. What was his
position on zoom call? Who does
he represent?
I
m right here. I
m with. I
m
with the builder.
Oh, there you go. Oh, that
s
you, right?
Yeah.
It
s me.
You get more gray hair. And I
get shorter. Anyway, the young
lady did a wonderful job
reading, uh, off the
statistics. And I
m wondering
where can I find the financial
statistics that were presented
on the slides? So somebody tell
me where I could find them. So
I haven
t seen them anyway.
Yeah, we
ll answer those
questions for you.
Thank you.
Oh, okay. Okay. So she she
stated that it
s hard for me to
read this. The commission
commissions are discouraging
urban sprawl. That
s what she
read that, uh, but continuing
on preserving open space and
prime agricultural lands. I
don
t think this does that in
very good stead. Frankly, if
you told me that we were trying
to do something for the town
center and build a customer
base for them, and I understand
that. But this doesn
t do it.
And annexation can be modified.
We all read this. I
m sure, and
it can be changed. And you as a
planning commission, have the
right to make changes to it or
suggestions for it. And you can
do that. And the city
commission, I
m sorry, the city
council, they can do that to
the only one who can
t do it in
the room is me and the other
neighbors. We can
t do that.
But we can. We can lobby for it
to be done because it could be
some changes. Because you
re
only you
re annexing seven of
the nine islands. So that tells
you that you can make changes
to it. And frankly, uh, none of
my neighbors want to be in the
city. And I can tell you, uh,
yeah, they mentioned the trash.
My trash is probably one third
the expense that it was when it
was in the city. And that
s a
big difference, going from like
$85 to $25. Oops. This is faded
white, just that I can see it.
Uh, and then do yourself, do do
us all a favor. Drive down
township, look for the center
of the road, and then as you
make the swing down reservoir,
look at the difference. Okay?
On the on township, you you
have a hard time finding the
center of the road in spots
because it
s not marked. You
come down reservoir. The road
is black. There
s yellow
markers. So you
re in there and
everywhere. And and it
s much
easier to traverse and and you
just need to consider those
things because they
re
important to us. And I
ve been
there 46 years paying taxes.
Why don
t I have a say in
what
s going on? You know, a
vote of some sort. So I don
t
know. And I
m sure all these
other people are asking the
same question. And you could
tell for people to get out in
103 degree heat and come to a
meeting, it must be important
to them. So anyway, I still
don
t know what your position
is right? Okay. I
m done. Thank
you. Thank you.
Okay. The next speaker is Lana.
Coffey. Got it. Thank you.
That came out really great
because Dave is my neighbor.
Literally my next door. Oh,
there you are. Hi, there.
You
re. Give them these
letters.
I forgot.
Can I pass these?
Oh, no.
It just.
In your speech.
At the end of your speech. Oh,
I got some letters for you.
You want me to read them? You
want me to read them?
No, no.
Or just give it.
To them? Yeah.
So I
m going to make this short
and sweet. My name is Lana
Zukowski. Um, I purchased my
house because it was
unincorporated, uh, back in
2020. And that was one of my
main reasons for purchasing
that property. Um, I moved out
of the city of Los Angeles in
the Valley. Horrible, horrible
experience. And when we moved
into the unincorporated part of
Simi Valley, it was safe. It
was calm, it was quiet. Yeah.
We don
t have streetlights. We
don
t have sidewalks. But you
know what? We have peace of
mind. We don
t have a lot of
commotion. We don
t have to
deal with. Excuse me, the bs of
most of the my friends that
live in the city of Simi
Valley. So I
m opposed, um,
against this. I also want to
ask you guys, what benefit will
r us as residents of the
islands get from annexation?
Besides an increase in taxes?
Besides having to change a
bunch of stuff on our
properties because now it
s
going to be under city instead
of Ventura County, Ventura
County is much more lenient and
much more easier to deal with,
you know? So I
m not happy
about that. Uh, I
d like to
know from you guys what,
besides those two things that I
mentioned, what benefit I
m
going to get from being a city
member? Also, I want to know
what happens to the residents
of the islands of the project
doesn
t get built. So you guys
annex our properties, which I
see as a city grab. And all of
a sudden stuff happens and the
project doesn
t go forward, but
we
re still annexed. Okay? And
the other thing is we do not
have enough power in the city
of Simi Valley. We all know
power outages, brownouts. So
now you
re talking about
putting in another 2000 homes.
Where are we going to get the
electricity from 2000 homes. A
little.
More.
200, 200.
And how many multi. Uh, 207.
And the multifamily.
Including the multi-family.
Okay. Anyway, where are we
going to get the power for all
of this. I mean I
m sure if you
all live in city, you
ve all
experienced brownouts,
blackouts, power outages, my
friends, uh, off of corner, a
couple, uh, Thanksgivings ago
had no power for four days.
Okay, so now we
re putting in
all of these new people, plus
the noise from the
construction. The roads got
damaged from all the trucks
going to the to the dump
because of the fires. So now
we
re going to damage our roads
somewhere. We
re going to cause
some more traffic. We
re going
to ruin our freeways. We
re
going to make it horribly
impossible to get up to the dog
park, which I usually frequent,
you know, so not happy about
that. Um, also, what I want to
say is, you guys, this is
number four of your on the
other side of the map, uh, is
the city required to request
annexation of unincorporated
islands? Lafco law does not
require a city to request the
annexation of unincorporated
islands. The city is free to
make that choice. So you guys
make that choice. So please
rescind that choice. We do not
want to be on it. I do not want
to be a part of Simi Valley,
okay? Because you do not want
to know how I vote. Okay. So
all I have to say is I believe
that this is a city grab for
properties and I oppose it.
Stop the annexation. You asked
for it. Rescind the application
and leave us the heck alone.
Thank you.
And I believe our last speaker
card is Vern oath. There we go.
Hi. That
s Vern Orth Island
eight, Island eight.
Yeah.
Um, personally, I think this
agreement is between the
developer and the city of Simi.
I don
t really like seeing more
open space getting paved over,
but my big my big, uh,
complaint is this annexation
thing of the other islands.
It
s our lafco rep here today
at the last meeting. Uh, we
really had to pin him down. He
admitted that
s not part of the
code. That
s their policy. And
if you have, uh, the California
code, five, six, 375, it states
Lafco MAY not mandate or
require annexation, and it
s up
to the residents of that island
to request that. So we keep
hearing this. It
s required.
It
s mandated. We have to do
this. And that
s simply not
true. So that
s all I got to
say.
Thank you.
Okay. Uh, are there any
comments from staff regarding
statements made during the
public hearing? And deputy city
planner as well?
Do you want to start? You want
me to start?
I
ll start with Elizabeth.
Okay. Elizabeth.
Um, so starting with Emily
Walker, she made comments about
the wildfires. Um, just as a
note, this project will
continue to be reviewed by the
Ventura County Fire Department.
They have printed they have
done a draft preliminary review
and approval of the, um. Oh, my
gosh, the board just escaped
me. The, um, the fuel
modification plan. Thank you.
Um, and this is the approved
fuel modification. This is the
acceptable fuel modification
plan. But as we move forward
with building permits, they
re
going to continue reviewing
this to ensure that it complies
with, um, with current rules.
Um, there were questions about
water. Um, Ventura, uh, City
Waterworks District eight has
reviewed it. This uses, um,
only 5% of the surplus, um,
water supply that we have. So
there
s water available. Um,
she had concerns about losing
the animal overlay staff has
studied the zoning maps to
ensure that the animal overlays
that are allowed by the county
continue is, upon annexation
into the city. Um, Island
eight, we did update to include
animal um, the animal overlay
with the pre zone. Um, MISS
Cheney, um, she has concerns
about septic continue with the
animals. Um, and the dust
mitigation. So city staff has
identified that we
re going to
continue to allow the septic
systems. We
re not going to
force connection to the sewer
upon annexation. Um, Runkle,
uh, she had concerns about the
dust. The, uh, mitigation
measures from the eir and the
air quality section do require
that there be dust mitigation
during construction. Um,
normally they put silt fencing
up on the fences to keep, to
try to keep the dust in, um,
contained within the property,
as well as having water trucks
to water it down, especially in
high wind events. Um, MR.
Hardy, he has questions about
where to find the fiscal impact
analysis that is attached to
the development agreement,
which is included in tonight
s
staff report. Packet. Um, it
s
a it
s a, um, it
s an exhibit
to it. I believe it
s exhibit
b. Um.
Was that in front table?
The report is posted on the
website. It
s like an 800 page
report.
Um, he also made comments that
the Planning commission and
City council have the ability
to change the island annexation
policy. That policy is state
law. Um, it
s not a policy
that, um, that the city has,
uh, regulations, uh, has the
ability to regulate that state
law. And then it
s policy
adopted by Lafco. Um. MISS
Zukofsky, she had questions and
concerns about the electricity.
Um, our city manager
s office
is works with Edison to ensure
that our that our projects are
on Edison
s map. Um, and it
s
anticipated that we are, um,
that we
re going to be looking
for electricity. She also said
that there
s going to be 2000
homes. That
s untrue. There
s
207, 157 single family homes,
50 multifamily. And then, um.
MR. Orth, uh, made the comment
that I told them it
s not code
to annex islands. It
s policy.
Um, it
s a policy. It
s
contained in the state in the
2000, Bill Lafco adopted,
adopted their policy. Um, and
it
s not a requirement that the
city today file an application
just to annex the islands. The
reason why we
re annexing the
islands is because we have the
North Canyon development and
Lafco policies. If you
re going
to take North Canyons, you have
to also apply and take the
islands. And that
s why we
re
here tonight with the island
annexation.
As a complete contrast to what
this paper says. Number four,
uh, the other side of the map,
complete contrast of what this
paper actually says.
All right, let
s, uh, let
s
hold the comments.
Uh.
Did you, uh, do a little more
detail? Elizabeth, on, uh, how
the 2000, uh, clarification,
uh, changed the document that
this lady is talking about
here.
Right. So, um, state the 2000
state law, uh, the city
legislature, in order to their
their purpose behind it was to,
um, make sure that, uh,
underserved county islands
were, um, were annexed into the
cities. However, it
s a blanket
statement. It covers all county
islands. It doesn
t focus on
underserved. Our county islands
aren
t necessarily underserved,
but they are islands that don
t
receive services from the city.
Um. I have the faq from Lafco.
Here.
Yeah, they say law does not
require city to request the
annexation of unincorporated
islands. Those cities are free
to make such a request to Lafco
at any time. And I think that
statement is meaning that the
city does not have to file an
independent application to
Lafco for the island annexation.
Okay.
No, no.
I
m sorry. Thank you.
Um, the city doesn
t have to
make an independent island
annexation request. The island
annexations are being included
with the annexation because
we
re annexing North Canyon
Ranch, and it exceeds the 40
acres in size. And Lafco policy
says city. If you annex North
Canyon Ranch, you north. If you
annex north, if you request to
annex North Canyon Ranch and
it
s approved in order to
record it city, you must file
application to annex the
islands.
So in that it was brought up
that there
s two islands that
aren
t being annexed.
Correct. An island six and
nine.
Yeah. And the exception for
those.
Uh, they don
t meet Lafco
definition of being a island
that needs to be annexed.
They
re not. They use the word
they
re not developed. Uh,
meaning that Island six, which
is the triangle shaped island
just north of us here. It only
has a single family residence
on it. It
s not fully developed
to its full potential. And then
Island nine is a vacant lot,
um, off of Kuna. Right. And
it
s completely undeveloped. So
they don
t meet the definition
of lafco to require the island
annexation.
Thank you for that
clarification.
On this.
Uh, would the applicant at this
time like to respond?
We
re going to ask Elaine
Freeman to address some more of
the lafco issues.
She
s she
s.
Pretty well versed.
In.
This area.
Yes. Elaine Freeman, I
m a
lafco. I was a lafco
commissioner for 12 or 12
years. Um, Lafco actually
formed in the late eight, in
1963, I believe, and it was
amended when Hertzberg was on
the Senate creating the 40 acre
process. Lafco is a state
mandated agency. Each county in
the state must have what its
purpose is orderly development,
preservation of agriculture.
Uh, the Commission does the
annexations. Annexations,
reorganizations. They also do a
municipal service review every
five years on all the agencies
that are covered by Lafco to
make sure they
re operating
under the rules are supposed to
be operating under this, uh,
situation occurred when the
amendment was made to state
law. That clearly stated that
the next annexation that
occurred would require the
bringing in of all islands, um,
with the exception of the 40
acres. So this is something
that is state law. And I know
there was a comment made to you
or the city could change that
law. Uh, no, it doesn
t work
that way because it is a state
law. So it would have to go
through the state legislature,
create a bill, get it through
the process, and Lafco has a
commission, a statewide, uh
lafco organization. Cal Lafco
would look at the legislation
and determine if it was a
viable piece of legislation
that Cal Lafco would even
support to to change the law
the way it is existed. So it is
not a simple process. It
s a
statewide process. Um, we just
happen to be, at this point of
the legislation, and I know
it
s difficult. A lafco meets
once a month on a Wednesday.
Uh, assuming there
s actions
that need to be taken and it is
a public hearing, and you will
the property owners will be
notified or they should make
sure that they watch the lafco
agenda. Um, but as a city, the
city is actually pretty limited
in their abilities of what they
can do on the annexation, since
it is state law. And I want to
make that really clear. It
s
it
s a state law. And, um,
uncomfortable as that is that
is what the law is. And after
being a commissioner for all
those years, um, I can
sympathize with people, but,
um, the whole point of Lafco is
orderly development. And for
areas to be served by the
organization that is closer to
them, which in this case is the
city of Simi Valley. So if
there
s any questions on Lafco,
I
ll be glad to answer them.
Can you tell us what state law.
That is?
I
m sorry.
What what state law is that?
What is the number?
Um, it
s known as the Cortez.
Cortez. NOx. Hirschberg rule.
That
s what you would look up.
I believe it
s referenced on
the screen.
Yeah, it
s in part of the
presentation.
Yes. All the rules are in
there. It
s. It
s a rather
extensive document. Spells out
everything that can occur. Um,
within the boundaries. Are
there any other questions?
Yeah. So just to summarize, uh,
so by bringing this project in,
we
ve triggered, uh, the lafco,
uh, annexation of the islands.
That is correct.
So, uh, we
re we
re in a binary
situation is right. We don
t
approve this project. We don
t
trigger lafco. But the next
project.
The next annexation, you will.
It
s inevitable. Right? And
there will be a next one.
Yes.
Thank you. Um.
I have a question to, uh. There
is no way for us to separate
this. I know the developer
would love that too, but is
there a way for us to separate
that? No.
Thank you.
And, Commissioner Tolson,
you
re in the queue.
There was one of the public
speakers asked what happens if
the project isn
t built? Does
the annexation still happen?
I would have to say that once
the annexation is approved and
becomes part of the city, it is
part of the city. But I they
they the applicant has prepared
all the legals, all the maps,
everything that
s required. Um,
for lafco. That was a
requirement of the developer to
get everything ready for Lafco.
And Lafco is quite aware of
this process going on. Um, from
my experience, I would doubt
very much if someone would take
it this far and then not build
the project. Just a guess.
What? Just another
clarification. So the, uh, the
lafco this the trigger for the
lafco and, uh, so both of these
processes are running
concurrently, right?
Correct.
Right. And they
ll continue
down that timeline
concurrently. So if, if, uh,
one can
t happen without the
other, right. The builder can
t
complete unless, uh, the
annexation.
Is correct, they
re required
and it
s within the city of the
city
s, sewer boundary. And so
it has always been anticipated
it would be brought into the
city.
Okay. That clears that up for
me. Thank you.
You
re welcome. Any other
questions? Yes.
So what about this development?
Just be specific. Puts it that
it has to be incorporated in or
the islands need to be
incorporated in. Other
developments have come into
play and see me. But what makes
this development one that
triggers Lafco?
It
s the first one since the
last annexation.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay. Any any other, uh, any
other comments that the
applicant I
d like to respond
to?
Well, yeah, I just I would, I
would say just a couple things.
One, you know, and what Elaine
said about Lafco, you know, in
state law with the Hertzberg
bill, um, and their policy to
bring in these unincorporated
islands, see, me and Camarillo
are the only two communities
that have these islands left.
All the rest of them, Oxnard,
Ventura, they all of them have
been those those issues, uh, of
not having or having these
islands not incorporated in the
cities has been remedied in all
of the other cities over the
last 25 years. And so this is
we can say that right now, this
is the this project has
triggered this. But if let
s
say for some reason, we didn
t
build this project, you
ve said
no. And, you know, we had to go
away. Laugh goes goal and
stated goal is to remedy this
issue and bring these islands
into the city as part of their
order of the development. It
s
going to happen at some point,
no matter what. And that
s
that
s I mean, they
re driving
this. The city isn
t driving
this. We
re not driving. This
laugh goes driving it because
they want those islands
incorporated in the city,
because that makes sense for
orderly development. Look, I,
you know, I was born in the
house on Avenida in the island
59 years ago. And, uh, and I
m
proud to say I still own that
house in the island. Uh, and
for the 20 years that I served
on the city council, my mom
couldn
t vote for me. Uh, in
any of the elections. So one of
the questions was, what are the
benefits that you get that you
don
t get now? Well, you get to
come down here as a resident
and now constituent that no
longer, you know, is, you know,
a non constituent in the city.
And when the city makes you a
promise. And I liked what one
woman, I think it was a lady
who came up and said, put it in
writing and commit to us that
you won
t take away our animal
overlay. Commit to us. You
won
t make you know, the the
sewer mandatory and those types
of things. Um, if you try to
change it and you come down as
an unincorporated island
person, you really are speaking
as a, you might as well be from
San Fernando Valley. And the
one lady said, I don
t want to
be part of Sammy. I mean, so
you could be anywhere if you
don
t want to be part of Simi
Valley. And so but if you
re a
constituent resident, then you
can come back down and hold
your city council accountable
to the commitments that they
ve
made. And so I think there
s
there
s just a little different
way. A lot of the other issues
I can
t argue about, uh, you
know, but I think the city has
gone above and beyond to make
sure that these residents, if
they are incorporated, get to
maintain the quality of life
and the style of life that
they
ve become accustomed to. I
know I watched my mom, my mom
passed away four years ago,
and, you know, she didn
t do a
lot of landscaping in the
house, but she kept her weeds
mowed. You know, she she lived
a very simple life out there,
and she loved it. And she was
part of the hoa that the that
the lady came up and spoke
from. Um, it
s a unique part of
Simi Valley and the lifestyle
in those areas are unique. And
I loved it growing up there.
And, you know, maybe when I
outgrow my two storey house and
I can
t climb stairs anymore,
that
s why I
m keeping that
house, because I might move
back into that one storey, 1900
square foot house that we built
in 1964. Because it
s it
s a
great it
s a great house and
it
s a great area, but it is
literally surrounded by the
city of Simi Valley. And so I
would I would leave it at, you
know, with that, this, this,
this annexation, uh, was always
meant to be the the pads were
built, the city certified them
the road, you know, circulation
element was looking to make
those connections. And we
re
coming in under the amount of
housing that could go there.
It
s a good project for this
community. Um, but I do I
understand the residents
concerns. Uh, I will I will ask
one question. It
s my
understanding, and I think the
staff mentioned it, that it
ll
take about a year from the time
this approval happens, if the
city council approves it, the
letter gets sent to Lafco
before our annexation of just
our project site comes into the
city. Then they said there
s a
five year window that could be
asked for with Lafco to delay
annexation of the islands for
an additional five years. And
my understanding that there
s
two one year additions on top
of that for a total of seven
years, which would give the
residents potentially eight
more years from now before they
they would come into the city.
Is that correct?
I don
t know about those
extensions. I heard that as
well at the, you know, the
concurrent timeline of the
annexation could extend five
years.
Right? My understanding is we
can request those, uh, those
extensions and allow those
residents to have the security
to know that their annexations
won
t be complete for roughly
eight additional.
Years.
We
ll have to.
Approve that. Right.
But our recommendation.
Right. So, but the city can
request that. So the city could
request that. My understanding
is Lafco has never denied those
requests. And so at least that
would give these residents
another, let
s say, eight
years, 7 or 8 years to not
worry while the city is putting
those concerns in writing for
them. So anyway, I
m going to
end there, and I thank you for
your time and your
consideration tonight.
All right.
Thank you, Lynn. Okay. At this
time, if there are no further
questions, we
ll close the
public testimony portion of the
hearing. Are there any comments
or questions from members of
the Planning Commission at this
time?
I see.
I see John and the queue.
I got one question for staff.
And just to just to clarify
about the animal overlay, is
there a is there, um, a sunset
clause on who would have what
animals on these annexed areas
moving forward?
So in terms of if they have
animals in areas that do not
have animal overlays, pre
zoned, um, that is a point of,
of island annexation that staff
hasn
t begun discussing yet.
Um, similar to the um, public
comment about having having a
list of what are we going to
enforce and what are we going
to grandfathered in? That list
also hasn
t been worked on.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Christmann.
Thank you. I actually have the
list of proposed zoning. It
s
number ten on the staff report.
Um, area five and area seven do
not have any any animal or farm
animal overlay. Um, and I don
t
know if those areas right now
include it
s number page number
ten in the staff report.
So staff did study county
county maps to see if they have
animal overlays on them. Those
two areas that you
re seeing,
they didn
t have an animal
overlay per county zoning. Um,
island eight that were pre
zoning as part of this action,
those residential estate lots
have animal overlays on them
with the with the county. So
we
re continuing we
re bringing
those forward with the with the
annexation with this, um, pre
zoning request to ensure that
they continue to be allowed to
have animals. Um, my
understanding of Commissioner
Tulsans question was for those
properties that have animals in
them that don
t currently have,
um, an animal overlay on them
with the, with the, with the
county. And what
s going to
happen to those animals?
Yeah. Thank you. I also, um,
calculated the overall open
space that is going to stay
open. So it
s a it
s 44%. I
think you said around 44. But
then I added it all together
with the slopes and drainage
and landscaping and parks. And
it
s actually it
s around 68%.
So I
m pretty happy about all
of the open space that is going
to stay there. Um, I
m going to
let somebody else talk. I have
more.
Okay, okay. Uh, a couple people
brought up costs and fees, has
city staff looked into, I
m
assuming now the county is
Athens trash service, where the
city is. Waste management. Is
there that much of a
discrepancy in trash service
fees between those two?
Yes.
Yeah.
Okay.
I
ll see if staff has any
answers first.
Sean, I don
t know the cost of
our trash services versus.
I don
t know the exact numbers,
Commissioner, but I did hear,
uh, in a conversation that was
at least $10 per month. More
expensive.
For the city.
For waste management is at
least $10 a month. More than
Athens. So it is an increase it
you know, it could be very
situation. I don
t have the
exact numbers, but yeah, based
on the audience reaction, it
s
very clear that the, um, waste
management is more, um, the
commission could always
recommend that the city council
or, um, it that the, you know,
the applicant or the city, um,
reach out to Waste management
to see if, if and when
annexation does occur, if
there
s some sort of grace
period to for those islands,
perhaps some sort of negotiated
settlement just for those
customers, there MAY be
something, maybe a goodwill
gesture, just a suggestion.
And the other part was
somebody, one of the speakers
brought up, specifically a
permit fee was $107 more for
the city than for the county.
Again, any idea of the validity
of that? I
m assuming it
s a
true statement, but I
m
assuming that we can.
Again, we haven
t studied the
cost comparison between, um,
Ventura County Building
Department permit fees versus
City of Simi Valley building
permit fees. Um, that
s
something that we could study
for city council.
Okay. Thank you.
Any other comments, questions,
questions?
Do you have more questions? Uh.
Lost my question.
Um.
You guys are coming up with
yours. I
ll come up with mine.
Um, one of the things that says
multifamily housing is that
just higher density housing,
like townhomes or truly for
plexus and multifamily.
Um, the multifamily, um, it
would depend upon what the
applicant proposes. Um,
multifamily would cover
attached units. Um, it
s just
it
s not a traditional single
family detached house.
So MR. Becerra, he actually
answered that question because
I asked it was townhomes.
Townhomes.
So no fourplex I mean duplexes
are find individually, but
fourplex is any of those or no.
Four packs. It
s five acres and
it comes down to ten, ten units
per acre. Okay. So the density
on the on the land that it
s
sitting on is quite low. But it
is four packs and there are 50
of them. But again, it
s ten
units per acre.
Okay.
Thank you. Thank you.
Mine is more of a comment. I
would encourage, uh, the city
to to delay the application of
the annexation of the islands.
If we were to push this project
forward just for the sake of,
uh, giving more time to the
residents and also for the sake
of our police department to be
able to properly prepare for
for the annexation, because
they will have to probably add
more force to it.
Any other comments? Questions?
Okay. At this time, uh, MAY
please have a reading of the
resolution.
Resolution number sb, pc 11
2026 a resolution of the
Planning Commission of the City
of Simi Valley recommending to
the City Council approval of
annexation. Annex 0077 General
Plan Amendment gpa 0073. Zone
change z Dash s 0613 plan
Development permit pd Dash
s-105 four. Tentative map tt
Dash 5658. Dash a and
Development Agreement d a 2026
00012. Annex and subdivide an
approximately 160.32 acre site
for a 207 unit residential
development consisting of 157
single family residences, 50
multifamily units, and open
space located between the
northern terminus of First
Street and the intersection of
Anchor Road and Falcon Street,
and annexation of County Island
properties. Annex, 2024 0001
Associated Pre Zoning z.
S-20240005 and adopt an
Environmental Impact Report and
mitigation, monitoring and
Reporting Program.
Okay. The chair will now
entertain a motion.
I move to adopt a resolution
recommending to the City
Council approval. Approval of
annex 0077 gpa 0073 z 0613 bds,
1054 dt 5658 a Da 2026 0001.
Annex 2024 0001 and z 2024 0005
and the Environmental Impact
Report and the mitigation,
Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
Would you like to add, uh,
recommendations to the council
on that as well?
Yes. Um, the recommendations
were to, uh, delayed the, the,
the, um, annexation as much as
possible is can I within what
is allowed, uh, of the rest of
the islands.
That sounds about right.
Okay.
And, uh, to investigate the
ability to negotiate with waste
management and, uh, the permits
for, for future building. Is
that is that correct?
Yeah, that worked for me.
Anything else?
I think you got the big items
there.
Thank you. I second.
We have a second. Um. I move,
okay, here we go. Uh. We now
have a call for the vote.
The vote passes unanimously.
Okay. Uh, there is no appeal
period for the annexation
general plan amendment, free
zone plan, development permit,
tentative map and development
agreement. And the items will
proceed to the City Council
with the Planning Commission
s
recommendations. Okay. Uh,
we
re now at, uh, proceed to
the next item, which is new
business. And at this time,
under 11, uh, there are no new
business items. Um, oral
communications and reports to
staff. Have anything to report?
Yes. Chairperson Kennedy,
members of the commission. And,
uh, just want to state that,
um, again, for the audience,
the city council hearing has
not yet been scheduled, so
please, um, keep an eye on the
city council website. You can
reach out to staff, including
Elizabeth, myself. As far as an
update to, uh, scheduling of
that item so we can go through
this process at the city
council level. So that
ll be
our next step. And staff is no
other comments on any other
items.
Any comments from staff? Okay.
Uh, do any commissioners have
anything to report?
I just want to thank, uh,
Planning commissioner from 1000
Oaks from the for the book.
And, uh, I
d like to thank all
the participants tonight. I
know this is educational for a
lot of us, uh, with the Lafco
stuff. So, uh, thank you for,
uh, participating in this
process. Um, now we
re on to,
uh, mobile home rent mediation
board. Does staff has anything
to report?
No items tonight.
A tree advisory board. Does
staff have anything to report?
No items tonight.
All right. Uh, this concludes
the meeting of AUGUST 26th,
2026. Next scheduled meeting