Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah. Okay. The planning commission meeting of June 18th will come to order. All rise for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. The secretary will call the role. Commissioner man here. Commissioner Tlson here. Commissioner Rice here. Vice Chairperson Kennedy here. Chairperson Chrisman here. May I have a motion for approval of the agenda? Move to approve the agenda. Second. A motion was made by Commissioner Rice with a second by Commissioner Man. Unless there are any objections, the agenda stands approved. May I have a motion for approval of the minutes? I move to approve the minutes. Second. I'll second. A motion was made by Commissioner Tlson with a second by Commissioner Rice. Unless there are any other objections, the minutes are approved. The secretary will read the declaration of conflict. If any member of the planning commission may have a conflict of interest or any reason why that member must abstain from consideration of any matter on this agenda, he or she should so declare at this time. Are there any declarations of conflict? I have to declare that I have a conflict

uh with uh 11A1 which is the RL Canyon project and the public hearing since I live and I am a homeowner in that community and I will have to recuse myself from that item. Um this is the time allotted for public statements or comments on all items other than public hearing. Is there anyone in the chambers wishing to be heard? That is not the public hearing items hearing. None. Is there any correspondence from the deputy director, city planner? Yes, chairperson Chrisman, members of the planning commission. We have one supplemental agenda item for 11 A1. We provide you a memorandum with the email attached. We also received a second correspondence uh this evening uh which was provided to you at your at your seat uh also regarding item 11 A1 from Dorene Stelman. So that'll be for 11 A1. Thank you. We have uh nothing on the consent calendar. We have continued business and we're going to continue unless somebody objects to uh an uncertain date. At this time, I will have to recuse myself and Commissioner Kennedy will take over. Uh, this is the time and place set for a public hearing on the consideration of DA-2025-00001. Are there any exparte communications to report? other than our chairperson. Um yes, vice chairperson. Um I did receive um two emails um prior to this meeting. One from Miss Stoutland

which is uh also on the dis and then also from Mr. Howard Roth who requested a meeting but I wasn't able to um make that meeting. Thank you. Uh anyone else? All right. Uh may we have an oral report on this matter by staff? Yes, vice chair, vice chairperson Kennedy, members of the planning commission, our principal planner, Narin Kunisakera has tonight's presentation on the um request for the Bronco Canyon development agreement extension. N good evening. The applicant Runl Canyon LLC is requesting an amendment to the Ronl Canyon Woodlands Project Development Agreement DA-04-01 to allow a 5-year time extension. The new expiry date would be June 10th, 2030. The project is located at the southern terminuses of Seoia, Talbert, Watson, and Comet Avenues, and High Point Place, and Hazelnut Court. The project consists of 1,595 acres. The original approval included open space, a neighborhood park, a private park, a public trail head and trails, a public water tank, 25 custom home lots, 298 detached single family units, 138 senior condos, a senior recreation facility, and in related infrastructure. The development has been ongoing since 2005. Construction is still pending for the homes for the 25 custom lots. the 138 attached senior condominium units and the senior recreation facility. You can see in the exhibit uh these these um aspects of the project have been called out. A development agreement is a contract between a city and a developer to define the project's rules, regulations, commitments, and policies for a specific

period of time. The applicant is requesting more time to complete the remaining aspects of the project. Extending the term will allow the project to be completed and the finalization of the public benefits from the development agreement to be realized. There is a remaining affordable housing inl fee of $900,000 to be paid. This will be paid once the zoning clearance is issued for the senior development. Extending the agreement will not have an effect on the approved residential density, approved units, the underlying subdivision or infrastructure improvements. The remaining improvements are within the scope of the original project description and the certified environmental impact report and addendum. It is recommended that the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending that the city council approve a 5-year extension for development agreement number DA-2025-00001 which is the fifth amendment to DA-04-01. This concludes the re uh presentation and we are available for questions. Thank you. Yeah, I have uh some questions uh on the uh senior condominiums, 138 of those condos. Uh what's the mix? Uh two, three, onebedrooms, and there was a percentage of those that was also uh labeled for low income. Is that correct? I am not sure about the mix of units. It's been some time since we looked at that project. The affordable units are bought out. That's part of the $900,000 um affordable inlue fee. So that that was previously bought out by the developer. Okay.

Any other commissioners? Any questions? Just just one just one question is um this first the very first um application was in what year? 2004. Yeah, I believe 200 I mean the very first application for this specific plan was probably even before that 2001 I want to say because the project was approved in 2005. Construction started in 2005. And how many how many um extensions have they this is the fifth extension for the development agreement. So there's been four before. Thank you. Uh another question on that. Have any of the extensions been uh denied in the past and if so for what reason? Uh an extension technically cannot be would not have been denied because um we wouldn't be here getting another extension. Um if if the extension is denied then all the entitlements basically disappear with the development ext with the development agreement. So all right thank you. So and staff to follow up with that um commissioners is the plan commission had previously recommended a shorter extension. I think one request was for five years. It came down to three. That might have been a last extension or the one before. I'd have to verify which one that was. It it was the last extension. And it was the applicant requested 5 years, the planning commission recommended 3 years, and the city council approved three years. Okay, that's what I was reading. Thank you. That was actually my question. So, any other questions from to staff? I'll hold mine until after the developer speaks. Okay. Then at this point we'll uh we

will open the public testimony portion of the hearing. We would like the Oh, would the applicant like to present the project? There we go. Two for one here. Is this on? My name is James Vaughn. I'm the land use council for the project. I've been working with uh city attorney Carl Berger uh on this development agreement extension and on addressing the other outstanding issues to get this project completed. So um I really don't have a lot to add on detail to the staff report because it's straightforward. Uh the development agreement uh is expiring and we need five more years to complete buildout. We're working very cooperatively with city staff. We're alo also working very cooperatively with the HOA in communicating the status of the project. The applications are actually in the works right now for both the senior units and the remaining estate lots. And so we fully anticipate to be able to complete the project within 5 years. But with that many units and particularly in the current marketplace, we think five years is um a realistic absorption period for the remainder of the project. So, that's the basis of the request, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. I had a previous question of staff that they couldn't answer. Do you know the uh mix of bedroom counts for the 138 condos? I do not. The the senior condos were approved a long time ago. And I you don't know if the planning commission makeup was the same, but about five years ago, the developer came in with the request to modify that project. I think it obtains staff support and maybe even the planning commission support to change uh the development a little bit to better match the market and the needs in the community especially during the

the COVID time where you know this type of of um design is not optimal. Um but that was ultimately denied and so at this point to keep the project moving and to finish buildout we see the only path and we've worked closely with staff on this. We see the only path is to build out as approved. Thank you. I got a question. Uh, your last extension was in 2022. What has been built since then? uh no new units have been built, but when we're here in 2022, that was right after the denial of the redesign work. So, at that point, it's go back to the old plans, update to meet current building code requirements, electric code requirements, and you can only imagine the level of detail that that needs to go through. And so, that's what's been happening. And in particular over the last, I would say 18 months, all of that, you know, has sort of been worked through. And so we're looking forward to approvals on both the senior units, the rec center, and the first batch of estate homes this year. So, so nothing completed physically in three years. No, no units. There's been work done on uh some infrastructure repairs and work there. There's some ancillary issues going on out there that we're also working with city staff on um cooperatively right now and successfully, but uh units have not been constructed because the new plans have not been approved yet. Okay. And then when was the last meeting with the HOA? believe it was within the last the Nick Bureau, the project manager, um I think is was intending to be here and may walk in while we're having the hearing and he would know because he has those

meetings, but I believe it's been within the last 60 to 90 days. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Um sir, um what percentage of this I mean let me rephrase that. Um I've been here through two extensions already I believe maybe three. Um and the fact that you haven't done anything in the last number of years is that what is the re is it because of the market is it because of the city is it the state you know regulations changing or is it materials cost? I mean, why is there this um delay in the project? Yeah, it's not a cost issue. Um I think it's a combination of many of those other factors that you listed. Uh again, I think two to three years was lost on the redesign effort that we thought had full support. Um so that was sort of a a shot from from left field, so to speak. And so that's back to the drawing board. a lot of what's been I think there was some time after that denial where in all frankness the developer probably sort of had to take a a gut check and figure out what to do. Um once that was done uh we came in and sought the development agreement amendment which was shortened to three years instead of five. We knew at that time that wasn't enough time to finish. Um but a lot of progress has been made behind the scenes. So the plans have all been redesigned. that been submitted at this point. Um, which is again multiple years of work uh that went into that and now there's, you know, full determination on the developer side to complete this as efficiently and quickly as possible at this point. So the rethinking is over, the redesigning is over, the plans are done, they're in. So, you know, there's

a lot of momentum. You just don't see it on the ground. Sure. Thank you. One more. One more for me. Sorry. uh the senior recreation facility is that getting reddes designed and all that too. There were there are a few I think they're called minor modifications in the plans that have been made uh including a little bit to the facade. I don't think it's really intended to quote freshen it up, but that's sort of a byproduct. But what's really necessary is accommodating the additional solar requirements, things like that. So once the architects have to make these changes, yeah, there's a few minor tweaks, but are the the same buildings, same design, and then redesigning of the estates. Is that I mean you're talking I mean sounds like the bulk of it is the senior facility, senior housing, but the estates redesigning of that. So there's a process apparently for single for estate lots the way it was approved. And I think it was initially envisioned that maybe lots would be sold off and built by individual um lot buyers as custom homes. I think the change is now they're going to be built by the developer and sold uh to make to get it done to make it happen. And so because of that there's not a process without a new entitlement. I believe it's a PUB that's going to be required. So you can do four a year maybe. The idea is not to do four a year for 25 lots and dragged us out for that long. So we've come in with the initial four. Those have been through multiple plan checks. Those designs are basically done and I think we're getting final signoffs to start construction on those first four. Then the remaining 24 estate 21 estate lots are going to come in with a single PUD to get approval of all of them together with the same basic kind of designs and floor plans. So there's been no redesign on the estate lots. They just were never designed in terms of a home. 25 will be done in 5 years. Yes.

Yeah. Real quick, is it the It was originally KB and LAR uh being the builders here. Is that the same builders today? It is. Run Canyon is an LLC combined of those two entities. Are the estate lots being built by one and the senior condos by another? Are they you know how that's I don't know the answer to that. Um yeah, I actually don't know. I know with the conventional housing different different you know subsections of the tracks were built out by one or the other. So you know in a particular sub community it would all be one builder. I don't know which of those two entities or the the venture are the ones constructing the senior units and constructing the estate homes. I don't even know if that's been determined. Thank you. Any other questions? Good. All right. Uh so is there anyone in the chamber wishing to be heard on this matter? Thank you very much. Thank you. And I do have cards here. Uh Jason Chrisman like to speak? Uh good evening. My name is Jason Chrisman and I've lived in the Woodlands in Semi Valley since 2019. And I came in here tonight with an open mind trying to just get this problem or this these issues resolved with the builder. And after hearing him speak, all I've heard is a bunch of excuses. And it's I was trying to keep this to where I'm not so frustrated. But just hearing him just infuriates me with the excuses about, oh, we got a gut check, so we had to take three years to redesign everything. I understand there's some potentially some California laws that have changed with battery backups, no gas. So maybe those things, but it doesn't take 18 months or three

years to complete that. So now I'm going to calm down a little bit. And part of my decision to live in that area was based partly on the vision that KB and Lenar sold me on. And that vision was a beautiful plan community that would be completed within the next few years. Uh it's been over three years since KB has built anything in our community as he previously mentioned uh which leaves nothing but a bunch of overgrown dirt lots, tarp chain link fences and erosion. Uh if you look at our community and from some angles it's very beautiful but when you get to these areas with the chain link fence it looks like uh you know downtown LA. So it's anything but beautiful. Uh, I would like the commission to consider uh a three-year extension with KB in one-year increments with no fees when proof is shown that each year they are actively engaged in some sort of physical building and not just these design changes that I don't even know why they would need design changes to the buildings, but they could have built the senior the senior uh rec center in the in the last three years. Uh KB is, in my opinion, I feel like they have uh they're not really interested in finishing this project. They've been dragging their feet. And if that's the case, uh they should just cut their losses and donate the land that's there to the HOA. uh if they actually have any intent in finishing this project as a good faith measure, I believe they should compensate and pay the HOA dues that we all pay as if the project was already built out. So, if there's 150 something

homes that are uh scheduled to be built, they should contribute 157 or 54 homes and pay those HOA dues to reduce our HOA dues, which should have been reduced 3 to four years ago when they said that they were going to finish this project. Uh because essentially the financial burden has been placed on everyone that lives in that area. And and lastly, I have one question I just want you to ask yourselves. You don't have to answer, but if your boss gave you a project five years ago and said and gave you a three-year deadline and five years later you hadn't even started that project, would you still have a job? That's all I have. Thank you. All right, we have another card from Al Alvarez. Good evening, commissioners, and thank you for giving me the time to speak to you. My wife and I bought our house at the Woodlands in 2016. We're part of the first phase of the buildout. So, this is not the first time that I stand in front of all of you. I've been here several times. The builder has been given several extensions prior to this one. In 2019, they were given a three-year extension to complete the project. Instead of starting to build the senior units and sell or develop the estate lots, during this extension period, Royal Canyon LLC started working on plans to make major changes to the plan that had been previously approved by the city. Their request was denied and were told by the city council to start building homes and complete the project. As a result, they had to come back to you and ask for another extension in 2022.

At that time, the city gave him another three years extension, but as of today, not one senior unit has been built, not one single house on one of the single home lots. and Bronl Canyon LLC does not face any consequences for failing to complete the project. Even though I feel that as homeowners, we have been deceived by the sil by the builder on more than one occasion. At this point, I believe that the planning commission and our community have no choice but to grant another extension for the fifth time to the builder if we want the project completed. I would support an extension for even five years, but only as long as there are timelines for the completion of different phases during the construction and there needs to be consequences for the builder if these are not met. Considering that there's about 160 homes that have not been built and sold and these homes are not paying HOA dues, the city should require that a number of homes that are built during different periods of the extension. And if they fail to do so, they must start paying HOA dues for those homes until they're sold and occupied by homeowners. So I urge the city planning commission that before they make a recommendation to either grant or deny another extension. It would be consequences for RL Canyon LLC if the project is not completed in the time provided. Thank you for your time. Okay, I have another card from a it looks like a Michael Napac Nepal. Nepal. that that L looks like a C there. Go ahead. If you're old enough, it's Nate without the M. There we go. Thank you. Uh I'm just going to read from these notes because I want to make sure I don't forget any of the details. The following will outline concerns and significant impacts these construction

extensions are having on our community and each of the homeowners. As we consider the third extension, which I didn't realize we've had five uh extensions being requested by the developer, we must take in consideration that for each extension requested and allotted, there's an explicit understanding that all necessary implementation efforts would be undertaken and the commencement would start immediately. Further, that the extensions would allow the major portion of the outstanding construction to be completed that hasn't happened. At the last extension, the city council and its staff clearly stated their expectations with measured deliverables. Again, the intent here was to prevent the developer from not delivering on its promise while providing the city with an early detection of non-performance. Two extensions and six years and six years later, here we are with a developer requesting another five-year extension and not one stake in the ground. In the past, the developer has stated that a big part of their delay stem from the lack of market interest for the product being proposed. Further, there was a lack of interest for just being able to sell the land, the custom lots, points of which they do not offer real backup data and points which directly contradict my numerous attempts to present buyers who would be interested in buying all the custom lots. During the same meeting that they told me that there was no interest for the lots, I proposed that I could bring developers in that would buy the lots and they say they were not interested in selling the lots. So, it's, you know, speaking out of both sides of their mouth. Allow me to share the unfortunate byproduct associated with this extensions. There there is a substantial monetary impact to the Woodlands community and its homeowners. As of the last month, that equates to 3,368,232.

At the current rate, each year extended, it cost us $561,000 of uncollected HOA fees. We also have, by the way, the last time I presented those numbers, they said, "Yeah, but we're paying for the upkeep of those areas that are not being developed, and the upkeep is non-existent. We also have an increasing and ongoing issue with numerous roadways and hillsides. These are streets that have not been turned over to the city and hillsides which have not been turned over to the HOA. These are areas in which are part of the construction phase which have not been commenced. Therefore, the city, the HOA and PMP which is our management company have stated that there's nothing that they can do until such time that the developer requests their release. So basically these are areas that need work but we're being told that these areas are associated with a phase and that phase includes the uh senior center or includes the custom lot. So therefore until such time that that's developed we can't do anything about those areas um and the completion. Okay. uh at this endless loop. As this endless loop continues, the roadway issues continue to expand and the hillsides continue to lack maintenance and the promise aesthetics. There's also a lingering question regarding the recent geotechnical and stability reports which the city has requested numerous times. As far as I'm concerned, I don't think they've submitted it yet and I'm not sure why that is. um considering their past and continued lack of performance and the impacts it is having on the homeowners and this development and the city at large there's some common sense questions which need to be asked and answered bearing in mind the size of the developers organizations I mean we're talking about KB and LAR for them to say that it took three years to redesign and three years to redesign it back while

they built 10,000 homes in Santa Korea and other places it's insanity So okay over the pering question why are they continuing to delay this particular project if said deliverables are missed without any severe financial repercussions what is the new incentive in which will motivate them to finish or perform. Last but not least, during the last uh request of the city council meeting, I asked and that was when they were requesting the the three years. I asked what would happen if after the three-year extension they did not perform. And the city council's response was unanimous that they would not be allowed any further extension and would have to commence the whole application process again. That's what they've been holding over our development where they say, "Look, you have to approve it because if you don't approve it, we have to start over again. Then you get nothing. Well, here we are again. As with everything in life, actions speak louder than words. And it is my personal belief that the developer does not intend to fulfill their promise anytime soon. The reasons are only known to them since they have not been forthright in their business dealings. At best, I'm sorry, last. Yeah. At best, I can hope all I can hope is that the it's a financial decision and not something relating to geotechnical and or contamination issues. Thank you for your time. Thank you. [Applause] Royce Cadwell, would you like to speak? Royce Cadwell. Okay, I got it wrong. Right. It's Royce Cadwell. Oh, good. You didn't add the L. Lots of people do. Hi. Okay, I'm Royce Cadwell and I'm reading so I make sure I say everything that I want. Okay, at this point I feel we have no choice but to grant an

extension but I think it should be maybe three years not five and we need to set ground rules um because the lack of performance reaching out for extension after extension. They've made no attempt to do anything in all these years asking for extensions at either the senior lots or or the estate lots or the senior center. So based on the lack of performance on their part, we need a timeline for the completion and I feel they need to submit permits in a timely manner and work on the project yearly and not leave the property sitting with no evidence of work being done. I live directly across from where the senior center is and I never see anything there, anybody, trucks, nothing. Um, I think a required amount of homes need to be built each year during a three-year period. And if they fail to do so, then at the end of the three years, they need to start paying HOA dues for the 163, I believe it is, including the senior center and estate homes not built and sold and continue to do so until the completion of the homes are built and sold. So, the HOA can then start collecting the dues from the homeowners. Or in the alternative, if the city can't make contracts with the builder to benefit our HOA, then the city should make a contract with the builder where the city collects benefits, which would push the builders to proceed. Um, I feel that no decision other than maybe a one-year extension should be made tonight, and it definitely needs to go to city council. And for sure, they're always told, "No more extensions, no more extensions. This is the fifth. It needs to stop." Um, also just throwing in another note because I said I live directly across from where the senior center is. We stare at this ugly fence with tarp that's constantly the winds, the weather, it gets torn, it blows

down, we get weeds and things from over there onto our property which we need to deal with. If we have to look at that for another year, three years, whatever it happens to be, I think they need to put up a more permanent fencing, not tarp, that we have to send email after email after email saying, "Fix the tarp." Um, I think we've all been more than patient enough after all these years. I've lived there seven and a half years. When we moved in, I was in the second phase. We were told everything would have been done within a year. Nothing's been worked on. Thank you. Okay, I have another card here that doesn't say whether it's a public or applicant. It's Tim Sample. Uh, thank you. I'm uh Tim Sample. I'm a U 26y year resident of Hazelnut. Um, so I've been I've been there the whole time that this has been going on. I I' I've heard everything. Um, in in my opinion, the the um the builder has never intended to finish this plan uh as it's been approved. The the custom lots they don't want to do and the the senior condos they don't want to do. They've they tried earlier to push this into more dense housing and and I think that's that's probably the end game that they're looking for. They just don't want to do this. We've heard them show up here and say how efficient they are. They don't buy property to hold it. They develop it and they get out. So obviously why why for so long? It's because they don't want to do it. So I'm all for additional time, but there there have to be some draconian penalties for non-performance, please. there was supposed to be last time and

apparently they weren't draconian enough. So, please um if you approve this, please make sure they finish. That's uh all I have to say. Thank you. Anyone else in the uh is there anyone else in the chamber that hasn't filled out a card wishing to be heard on this matter? Seeing nobody jumping up. Uh are there any comments from staff uh regarding statements made during the public hearing? Dr. Sha Kennedy. Yeah. I'd like to answer your question about the building the senior center, the senior condominiums. It would be 26 buildings consisting of three one-story duplexes, 13 twotory forplexes, and 10 twotory eightplexes. That's what you'd have. One more time. I was not fast enough. It's three one-story duplexes, 13 twotory forplexes, and 10 twotory eightplexes. Thank you. Um the I believe somebody mentioned timeline. So um I we do have a slide on that. Uh before you go there, can I come back? And and how many uh parking spaces uh is allotted for that senior center and and then the senior activity center as well. Uh propose 296 spaces for the condominium development. Thank you. That includes one and twocar garages. probably some surface parking and I believe the senior uh recreation center has a miniature parking lot also. Yeah, it does.

Uh just in with regard to time what the timeline after the last approval uh this is just a quick summary of that 2013 the senior condos were approved. 2015 the senior recreation center was approved. uh 2022 was when the last extension was granted. Construction plans were submitted for the senior condors and the recreation center on July 13th of 2022. Corrections are provided to the applicant on August 31, 2022 and that plan check expired in December of 2023 with no resubmitt and we have not received any resubmitts yet. Um the applicant I believe is going is in the is very close to re is sorry is very close to submitting administrative action appro um applications for minor modifications to both buildings and they should be doing that in the next few days. Thank you. and uh vice chairperson um our deputy public works director is here if you have any specific questions on um or if you're looking for answers on some of the questions they rose about the improvements on the site and um staff could also respond to any um questions that you might have based on the public comments. So if you want to have a particular question, we can respond to those specific comments and or suggestions. I do I do have a couple of questions. Uh one was uh it was said that the geotechnical reports uh uh had not been submitted yet and uh can you tell us where we're at on that? Brent Seamer, deputy public works director, uh, vice chair uh, Kennedy and commissioners. Uh, in the interim of me requesting updates and conversations going on, uh, our city attorney's office

has been working with the attorneys uh, for the developer and have developed a memo of understanding. They're working on that process. So, uh, those reports probably aren't going to come to me. We are now establishing uh outside third-party reviewers and uh the city will have its civil engineering reviewer. KB home will have their reviewer and those reports are probably going to those uh firms those entities to consider. The goal is to identify what needs to be finished, what needs to be fixed, what needs to be repaired and that's where the geotechnical would come into place. So public works themselves is probably not going to get those reports and I would probably be looking to the city's attorney's office to be giving us idea of how that's progressing. So I don't have anything to report at this time. U Mr. Seamer. Um, can you give us a rough timeline of what you think that would how long that would take or should in your opinion? Of course. Um, some of the geotechnical has to be moved along quicker because they need to certify the uh pads for the for the uh estate homes. Those have been sitting for some period of time. So those will be probably separate reports I will see but it'll be a geotechnical engineer that will be attesting to that and it would also be for the senior site. Um there are there are a couple different areas that were concerned. One was an access road to the gold state water tank. Uh was there was some monitoring associated to it. some recommendations that were uh uh apparently uh have been made to KB home. KB home does have that they were considering the recommendations that report is

completed. Hopefully that will be uh provided to the uh both sides and the considerations. So that concern uh other areas um I don't think anything has been initiated to even begin uh geotechnical review of some of the other problem areas specifically um on the western side in the Talbert area um that has its own issues going on outside of the city that I don't think we'd go into tonight but those geotechnical will probably be dealt with completely separate from the city at this point but if they submitted those as quickly as possible. How long do you think it would take for the city and a third party to um do that to agree or So, the city does have a third party reviewer that's been involved in this project since before I got here in in 2012, has reviewed all the different reports, extensive comments during construction. They would be able to respond within a week to digest anything that was submitted and and return comments. So, we we aren't slow at all at this point because we have the same horse that we're riding uh to respond as far as uh if it's now another third party comes in. Obviously, it's they have to do a lot of research on old reports to be able to catch up. But at least at this point, if the city's own um consultant for geotechnical was given the reports, it' be fairly rapid. Thank you. Are there are there um challenges with the senior center site? You talked about this the custom homes as being a problem, but specifically the senior cider senior center site the and in talking to our consultant as far as the history that we've seen the senior center uh has no history that we know of particular and even the estate

lots we don't have any particular history. uh it's it's elsewhere on the property. So, we would expect that the response the geotech and responsible charge of the project would typically turn in the new certifications and we'd move quite quickly to to accept that. So, yeah, the the remaining sites to build on um I have no history of any specific problems. We got a different tact of a question. It may not be your area, but uh having sat up there and watched the traffic flow in and out uh of this development uh and uh being that the traffic study was probably done 15 plus years ago, is that something that needs to be taken another look at um in in light of new new traffic studies and patterns? There would not be a need. Uh, one of the things that is outstanding, I believe, is a $100,000 uh, responsibility of the developer if there were to be any uh, traffic issues related to the project. Uh, there is uh, one set of culde-sac streets immediately north. There were some uh, adjustments made with medians and such. uh if we add the additional traffic of the uh homes of the the senior residents and such and there were a problem there is money set aside to address that with whatever improvements to the roadway. So that's that's still in place. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Uh okay. Uh, I did get a card back uh from Nick Barrow as an applicant. Would any would the applicant like to respond to any of the comments regarding statements made during the public hearing under that?

Hi. Uh, my name is is Oh, sorry. My name is Nick Bureau. I'm the project manager for Wrunk Canyon and I want to apologize for being late. I was outside and thought that the other public hearing was going on and I came in a little bit late. So, I'll start out with an apology to the whole group and to everybody in this room. Um, I'm I'm here to answer any any questions on the project itself. I've been working on on this since about January of 2024 and been processing the plans that are being discussed about the estate lots. The first four that are going to be built at the end of Redwood Grove Court. That's 162, 176, 190, and 198 Redwood Grove Court. I I had a presentation with me, but it's now probably late for me to show you those elevations and floor plans and what's being processed through the city. Those are in Fort Plch check and I'm hoping that very soon we'll be able to get the approval for those. We're essentially crossing tees and dotting eyes. On the senior site, uh we are getting ready to submit an administrative application for the for the roof line and for the elevation enhancements that we want to do. And once we go once you receive those as the body that's going to review that administrative application, we'll be ready to update our plans and come back in and resubmit. That same applies to the rec center for that to come in. So from a timeline standpoint, we have plans at city hall. We expect those to be approved at any moment. We do have to go in and regrade those four lots and get the certification into public works. Once I have that, this July, we'll have the subdivision improvement agreements to go before the city council. With that, I can secure all the signatures that I need on the supplemental zoning clearance forms in

order to pull a building permit. That speaks of just the project understanding, picking up the pieces, getting everything through the process, working with staff now for about 18 months to be in a position to let and share with the HOA, which I've met with them several times. They've seen the original concepts, the original elevations, and I've kept them at large of the submittals that have gone to the city. There's no surprises. Everything I've shared I've shared with the HOA at their meetings right across the the civic plaza. So, we're we're in we're in we're in good shape. We're in shape to basically move forward. We've been working with the city and we're ready to start building. So, I'm I'm available for any questions on the project. When was your last meeting with the HOA? At the end of May. Thank you. Uh if you put the two timelines together, the estate lots and uh concurrently with the uh the senior center uh stuff, are they running concurrently or you doing one and then the other? because we're only allowed to build four homes at a time because they're the same ownership. That's what we submitted four. It was a good fate effort to move the project forward and we would do four. I'm getting ready to submit what's called a plan unit development application to proceed with the balance and that w that we could only do after we had completed plans understood the elevations and the floor plans that we were going to submit for the balance of the 21. We feel comfortable with the four that we have that are going to be built and we're going to be coming in probably at the end of July with an application for the balance of the estate lines. What that means is that we won't have to do four next year like we were going to do without the PUD application. We're going

to do four. Then we're submitting an application for 21. And we're hoping that sales go well at that price point, which is $1.6 to $2 million that we are able to sell quickly and continue to pull building permits. The timeline for the senior site goes to the administrative review that is coming forward. Once that gets reviewed and we get an okay, we update the plans that you saw we we received in 2022. We're just resurrecting that set of plans with some elevation enhancements and some roof line changes to meet building code. And we're come back with that same plan set just updated. And they will be constructed concurrently. Then you'll be working on estates and senior center at the same time. Four estates will go as soon as I can pull a building permit. And I'm hoping it's as early as August. August, September if I can. August is my preferred date. From then we submit plans for the senior site while we're processing the PUD. And from there, we're looking at starting if plans go through and get approved quickly, I could be in the ground at the senior site as early as January of 26. So, just so I've got it in my mind, you got the four estate lots and then the other 20 21 lots are going to be part of a separate PUD build, correct? You're submitting them at the same time. Yes. Got it. Thank you. Anyone else? Chairperson, Vice Chair, I'll just clarify one thing Mr. bureau said is that the um applicant had the opportunity to apply for a plan development permit instead of the four initial units. Um so we had that option either build up to four units in a calendar year or apply for a plan development permit. So that's that's been on the table for um a while. So

just want to clarify that that was an option. It wasn't a city requirement to choose that path. Yeah, we we chose that path to show progress because I think coming in to ask for a development agreement extension without the level of work that's currently in in the building department would would not show the level of faith in us moving the project forward. Thank you for that clarification. Any other questions? Any other questions? Okay. If there are no further questions, we will close the public testimony portion of the hearing. Are there any additional uh comments or questions from members of the planning commission this time? I have a few. I'm sorry, I can't properly see you. So, you gave a brief timeline of the extension. So, we did a three-year extension in 2019, three in 2022. What was before 2019 for their extensions? Were there three years? Were there five years? Is there a timeline that staff has? I do have a timeline. Let me see if I can find it. And while you're looking, are there were there any terms and conditions on prior extensions or given benchmarks or proposed penalties if they didn't meet certain things during the extension or they were just granted and that was it? I would have to defer to the city attorney on that because we planning doesn't really negotiate development agreements. I don't have the information with me. Carl Burgerer's been working with I believe James Vaughn on these issues. We can maybe bring him up and ask him a little bit about that.

Okay. Um, at the same time, well, city staff's looking for the timeline for the city attorney, do we have the ability to impose penalties or benchmarks or have them, if they don't meet certain criteria, pay the HOA fees as the residents are asking for the unimproved lots? My general understanding on that issue is the city can take action against a developer for essentially taking too long to um build out, but the actions available are going to depend on the terms of the development agreement and our local laws. And so we'd have to really look at what the agreement says and what conditions are going to be imposed. Maybe we can invite Mr. Vonip to talk about his discussions with city attorney Carl Burgerer. Uh before we do that, because I will have to open up the public hearing, I'll I'll get a few more questions. Um so again, back to you, not to put you on the spot. Does the city have the ability to impose a penalty for the fund to be payable to the HOA for the lots or that is a question that we'd have to answer. Have to look into that. Okay. Um do you have the answer? Sorry. Yes. Perfect. Um, so the initial approval was in was on April 26, 2004 for the original DA. Then, sorry, there's a long list here. I'm just looking primarily for the extensions. It's uh I'm I'm just looking through the DA, so it's a lot of language here. Um 2012 was um an amendment to the original DA that basically approved it for another 5 years.

Um it looks like 2016 there was another amendment that that basically affected the affordable housing agreement and also extended it. And then 2019 was the next extension number three. then 2021 was the next extension number four. Um and then the last was in 2022. 2022. Yeah. Okay, perfect. Um, I'm assuming there's nothing in the development agreement or any of the extensions that the senior recreation facility had to be built by a certain date or a certain time. It could just be built very last. I have not seen anything in the development agreement uh in terms of that timing. Okay. Um, but again, I would defer to the city attorney for specifics of the development agreement. I'm assuming the developer still has a bond on this entire project still. I they do have bonds in terms of the public works improvements required and again I would um defer to Brent Sema on that uh because public works holds the bonds on those and the reason I ask is that in one of the correspondents from um get this right Mr. Vaughn he talks about replacing one of the bonds with the city will replace the bond with a with a new bond for the remaining cost. So, I'm assuming there's bonds still in place. I I my understanding is yes, but I would uh again defer to the city attorney or public works director to answer those in detail that question in detail. Okay.

Um, evidently there's something in the city that they can only do four, I'm assuming, four custom homes at a time, but if they do the PUD, they get past the four and they can do the remaining 21 all at the same time. So, the the the initial estate lots, as previously mentioned, were intended for individual buyers to purchase and build their custom homes. Got it. Um, whenever you do more than four uh pro four four lots, you try and develop more than four lots owned by the same person, you require a plan development permit. The option for a plan development permit has been there ever since this project was approved. Okay. Um, however, I'm not sure what happened that they they were looking at it as custom lots. So maybe that option wasn't looked at. So 18 months ago they wanted to do the four units every year. So we told them again you can do the four units every year or you can do a plan development permit. Uh so that the path that they chose is to do four units now and apply for a plan development permit down the line and and commissioner the um basis of that is the development agreements under the prior zoning ordinance back in 2004. At that time, a developer could could construct four houses without a plan development permit. The current rules a only two homes or even one home can be constructed without a plan development permit. So, this development agreements under the old zoning rules. So, um that's how the applicant chose four to go without a public hearing. So to do the plan development permit, is there a huge extension? I mean a huge time frame. Is there a huge cost? I'm just trying to figure out why they wouldn't have done and again that's a question we can ask. Uh why 18 months

ago they wouldn't have done the plan unit planned development permit for just all the 25 versus doing the four and then the 21. Like Narn said, we we offer that as the path of uh easiest resistance in terms of processing. Right. Uh currently though the applicant has applied for the four custom lots. They are going through city planning, review and plan check. So generally that's running fairly smoothly. There have been some plan check corrections. Um those would get four homes built and uh I spoke several times with Mr. Bureau about about their process at the time. Um and initially there was thought of just doing four per year but now they've come back to the uh advise us that they would like to proceed with the plan development for the remaining 21. And again it's it's a relatively simple plan development permit particularly because the houses have already been plan checked by staff. The lots are already created. So really you're just approving the architecture of those 21 homes. So, it should be fairly simple um review to get back to the public hearing to approve to consider those 21 lots, but they have not yet applied for the plan development permit. They're intending to, but it hasn't been applied for yet. I think they're getting very, very close. They're almost there, but they have not applied as of today. Is that correct, Nor? Correct. Um, if somebody else has a question, jump in. I'm reading through my notes. Yeah. Real quick to the city attorney. Um, with the questions that uh, Commissioner Man has asked, how much time would you need to research this and get back to us?

Yeah. Just hold the feet to the fire type of things. Yeah. Um not sure. Um so I'm just you know I don't want this not sure. Yeah, I'd have to look into that. And then also um to answer his other question regarding the timeline, the there's exhibit C attached to the development agreement has a little bit laid out there regarding the timeline. For penalties, I would have to research it. I'm not sure how long I've been named. I I think where Commissioner Mann's going and what I'm thinking is we we want some type of not only positive incentive but a negative incentive for this to move forward quickly. I mean, we've heard from a lot of people here tonight uh and what's been going on with that. So, just want some timeline hurdles or bars in place for them to achieve. So, like some benchmarks. Yes. could take a recess. Um, take a little bit of time. I don't know if I'll have a final answer now. We take a short recess if you'd like. I think that would be uh Yeah, I'd like I'd like a recess. Did you want to maybe get any other questions before we take a recess? Yeah, let's let's do that. Let me get back on on track. Okay. Where was I at? Okay. Uh, we're not going to read the resolution. We're going to go back and uh reopen it to Sorry. I think any commissioner questions first. Oh, I thought we were done with that. Any more commissioner questions? All right, we're going to reopen to the applicant, please. Thank you, James Vaughn. Again, council for the applicant. uh in terms of the idea of adding a

schedule of performance to this development agreement uh extension that's essentially what's happened actually. So in it's on page two of the actual proposed extension or amendment uh recital or section sorry uh section 1D says extending the expiration date requires the party's continued performance of the conceptual terms set forth in the letter agreement between the city and developer dated March 31, 2025 that is attached as exhibit A and incorporated herein and then that is the three-page uh what is it? Six item, seven item uh letter that was worked out over many months of work between uh our office and the city attorney's office and the city staff and the and the applicant to figure out how to hold the developer's feet to the fire and make this a quid proquo. So that we're addressing some things that the developer feels has slowed down the process and made this impossible to complete faster. and we're addressing issues that the city has raised and said, "Hey, developer, you're not doing a a good enough job on these items." That's what this letter agreement essentially does. And it's a process we've all agreed on. It's already underway. It's been going since March. Um and and the development agreement extension this time, which didn't happen previously, incorporated these requirements. So, I hear um the I heard the public comment loud and clear. I heard the concerns by the commissioners loud and clear. And we're that doesn't surprise any of us. We're aware of those concerns and we're trying to work together with the city and the city attorney's office to find a fair way to address those that will actually lead to this project being completed within the five years this time when it hasn't been previously. And I think you've heard Mr. Bureau was not here last time around. He's been working diligently for 18 months on this project. I think staff can attest. They see him, I'm sure, weekly, if not more often. And you know, things are happening. Unfortunately, the

residents aren't seeing as much other than attendance, regular attendance at HOA meetings. Um, but they're about to and we we're requesting that the commission tonight, you know, move this forward to city council with the development agreement extension is going to come the replacement subdivision improvement agreements. That's what that's what governs the public the bonds for the public improvements that were asked about. We can't do anything further on the ground out there until those subdivision improvement agreement replacements are in place. So, that's been one of the holdups that's covered in a letter agreement that will go with this extension to the city council. If those are approved, then we can start moving dirt again out there and building the rest of the units. So, that's the request. Thank you. And I can answer any other questions. Real quick, it says in the U in that agreement that the U working group will meet in April 2025 and monthly thereafter. Has that happened? Yes, although it's been done in a little bit more of a serial way. the city attorney and I are meeting about every two to three weeks by phone or virtually. Um and uh Mr. Bureau is working with staff likewise. And so between the two and the outside uh city engineer that was brought in um there's basically multiple channels of communication going concurrently. But that we believe is performance of the working group meeting. I think the city feels the same way. Thank you. Thank you. Another question for you. Um, so evidently the whole thing with the geotechnical stability reports has a third party vendor been chosen either by the city and or by the developer because evidently that's under your purview now not Mr. Seamer's or am I missing something there? No, I believe Mr. Seamer can comment on that.

Okay. Sorry, I thought he said it was in the city attorney's office. Commissioner May, please re repeat your question so I can hear this this missing geotechnical stability report. Has one been issued or has it not been because I thought you said you you wouldn't receive it. It would go to a third party. Correct. There third parties have been currently established through memorandum understanding between the city's attorneys uh their attorneys and they are in the process of having those engineering firms. They would receive those reports and respond to them. So I'm not party of that conversation. So I won't be you know directly involved in geotechnical reports going forward. The only time I will be is when they do pad certifications. Those I believe are going to be much milder situations to work through. It's the other questions that are more profound. So I guess my question is have the third party people been chosen and have the reports been given to them yet? Can't speak to the report but the parties have been chosen. So, the city's attorney's office does have a third party engineer in in place to be giving counsel. They've been reviewing all the reports that we currently have. Um, I'm not I do not know the party that uh the the developer has, but I understand there is one. Uh, as far as the arrangement of when reports are going to be issued to them, again, I'm not a party to that. that would be best through your city attorney's office to give some sort of idea of time frame and what reports are expected and such and and again you may or may not have that's consistent with my understanding. I don't have reports as I sit here but I could certainly um follow up on that for you to get a timeline of when those reports will be expected. Okay. And the

reason I ask is that Mr. Van says that is seems to be the first hurdle to move forward with this development. So, I'm just kind of curious as to what needs to be done to go over that first hurdle. Again, sorry for making you do so much. That's what I'm here for. Thank you. That's it for me. I'll be quiet now. Do we still you still want to do that recess real quick? Yes. Okay. So, we're going to call for a short recess. Thank you.

Okay, we're back from recess. And do we have some answers? Yes, sir. Um, just wanted to provide some responses to Commissioner Mann's appointed questions. Um, the first question was regarding the imposition of penalties. Um, under California law, there's no legal mechanism to impose penalties in this scenario. Regarding the question, he had a question about whether or not um anything could be done regarding the HOA dues that are not being collected currently. That that issue was raised. Um, the HOA dues is a civil matter, not a land use issue. That would be between the HOA members and the city can't get involved in that. So, it's not the proper forum. And regarding the deadlines, um, they're not built into the development agreement and but they can be considered as a recommendation to city council. So, it makes it to city council. What you could do is recommend some benchmarks or some of those deadlines you were talking about that you feel might be beneficial. Um, but again, there's no um allowance for penalties. Thank you. Thank you for your time. So our path forward here are [Music] so vice chairperson Kennedy um again tonight um once you uh choose to entertain a motion there are options available for you. You could uh adopt a resolution recommending approval to the city council. You could adopt a resolution recommending not recommending denial of the project. Or you could also recommend modifications. And as the assistant city attorney said,

you may um also include recommendations for um benchmarks benchmarks or comments for the city council to consider. Well, I I'm not going to make uh let's make some recommendations then. Um I'd like to make a recommendation modification uh to start with and uh tighten up the timeline on this from five years to three years. And as far as the benchmarking goes, Commissioner Mann, you had some ideas on that actually. I'll defer to Commissioner Tlson. Very good. Here, here's my idea for modification. We do a two-year term, and in those two years, they need to complete the four custom lots and the rec center. Um, I would agree with Commissioner Tullson on that. Otherwise, my recommendation would be for denial, but definitely no more than two years. So, I guess without going back into the public hearing, I can still ask questions of staff. Correct. Correct. How expansive or how big is this senior recreational center are we talking about? Because I'll be honest, I do not remember it. Uh, let me try and remember it as well. or Mr. Gibson, if you know, are is it, you know, 5,000 square feet? Is it 25,000 square feet? How big is this recreational center facility? Yeah, it's maybe about 2500 square f feet. It's a it's a little community room, some uh like a kitchenet, restrooms, a a swimming pool on the exterior.

Um it's to serve the senior community. So, it is tied to the senior community. Uh yes. Okay. Okay. So, realistically, the odds of them building that prior to building out the senior community is probably not going to happen. Well, what about building one of the senior buildings at least? I mean, because there were how many buildings? 26 or something like that. Yeah, 26. So, is that just a reminder, you can't come up with the deadlines on your own, but you can recommend them to Okay. Right. Thanks. Just to be clear, it's uh the building is a floor area of 2,800 square ft. It has a multi-purpose room, exercise room, kitchen, restrooms, the pool, and the showers. Is it a standalone facility within the senior community? No, it's a separate separate lot. It's a separate Yeah, standalone. Yes, standalone. Yeah. Yeah. I I think the ultimate goal is just to see some forward progress being made without in five years if we do the five-year extension being here in five years and them coming back and then being the developer saying we're going to do this. So I'm I'm good with the short term whether it be two years or three years and I would love to you know put it in the four lots and hopefully by then they will have done the PUD and started on construction the other ones. Uh I'm not sure if they're going to be or who's going to be developing the senior part of this whether they're going to be doing it different contractor. Uh if we do a two-year extension with the the recommendation for the four lots and at least some progress made on the senior as long as there's forward progress and at the end of two years or in 18 months if things they need another extension

they can come back for another extension. That way at least we have some kind of timeline and some kind of I'd rather have a carrot out there than the whip. So as long as there are making forward progress then if they need another extension I'd have no problem with that. But I just don't want to give another blanket fiveyear even a threeyear without having some kind of conditions tied to it. I think we're all on the same page with that. U so this is just a re recommendation for those of city council. I just no more than two years. I just can't stand. This is my fourth time, maybe my fifth time actually, of seeing this project. I really don't want to see it again. And I feel like the developer has has not lived up to what they've done. I've never seen anything extended this many times. This this is ridiculous. And the same developers done other projects in Oh, absolutely. And done a wonderful valley in the city and they've been great. That's this is just bizarre to me and after all you are the senior member on the diet so I can understand it you know four four or five times. Yes. Again I think the HOA and the members that have bought up there it's been going on long enough so we need to do something to try and instill with the developer to make some forward progress. So I I would have no problem with the two years uh and make the proposal to the city council that you know they impose something about the four lots and at least some kind of construction either on the senior or the recreational center they can figure out the wording after more extensive time with the city attorney. Right. So I think we're all in agreement two years with some benchmarks uh to the city council on this. Right. So in that case, you would be approving the item with the recommendation that council shorten the term to two years and that they establish benchmarks. Correct. Good legal wording.

Do we read that into the resolution now with modification? Yes, you want you'll want to um ask for the reading of the resolution. If you want to respond to that public comment, public question, you can either reopen the hearing or go straight to the reso. I'd like to hear the public question. Reopen the public. Yeah, we're reopening the uh public portion of Michael Nepal 291. Talbert just had a question. Um right now the developer has agreed to developing four lots by the end of the year and then based on how that goes then next year they would develop more of those lots plus they would start doing something in regards to the um senior center. Wouldn't it be more bang for our buck to commit to two years and getting eight or 12 of those custom lots done? Because I'm not sure and this what I don't want to do is say this is our recommendation and then you find out you really can't build one single building in the U senior center. It has to be built you know differently from an economic standpoint. That was just yeah my point. You know, I would rather see more of the custom lots completed and then the senior senior center dealt as a project as a complete project versus doing one building or doing the rec center. I don't I don't know what that buys us versus finishing 12 of the custom lots or 20, you know. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, we'll close that. close again the public comments and uh we get a uh

reading of the resolution. Resolution. Resolution number SVPC 11-2025. A resolution of the planning commission of the city of Seami Valley recommending to the city council approval of an amendment to the development agreement DA 2025 00001 DA0401 amendment number five to allow a 5-year time extension for the Rono Canyon/Woodlands project located at the southern terminuses of Sequoia Talbert, Watson, and Comet Avenues and High Point Place and Hazelnut Court. Okay. The chair will now entertain a motion. I move to do a modification on DA 2025-00001 to a term of 2 years and to recommend uh putting benchmarks on such two years. Do I hear a second for that? I'll second. Right. Okay. Time to call for a vote. The vote passes with chairperson Chrisman abstaining. Okay, we go. There is uh no appeal period for DA2025-00001 and the item will proceed to the city council with the planning commission recommendations.

Wait for I can't hear you. Wait for to come back. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. She's coming back. Thank you all for coming out. Right. Okay. I'm going to get collected here. Um, oral communication and reports. Does staff have anything to report? Staff has no items to report. Um, do any commissioners have anything to report? I do. Thank you, Sean, for uh for being patient with missing your Dodgers game tonight. I haven't missed it all. Oh, haven't missed. Okay. Um mobile home uh rent mediation board, does staff have anything to report? No, no items. Uh tree advisory board, does staff have anything to report? No items tonight. This concludes the meeting of June 18th. The next scheduled meeting will be August 13, 2025. This meeting is adjourned. [Applause]