[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