Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. The planning commission meeting of May 13, 2026 will come to order. All rise for the pledge of allegiance. Mr. McGillis, you want to lead us? Yes, I do. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. The secretary will call roll. Commissioner here. Chrisman

here. Vice chair here. Here. May I have a motion for the approval of the agenda? I'll make a motion. Second. Unless there are any discrepancies. No discrepancy. Unless there are any objections, uh, the agenda stands approved. Approval of amendments. Uh, next item number five. May I have a motion for approval of the March 3rd, 2026 and April 8th, 2026 minutes?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. I hear a second. I'll second those. Okay. Next is the declaration of conflict. The secretary will read the declaration of conflict. any

I I have a conflict of interest for the public hearing um A1 uh since I live in the Runel Canyon project and that is my primary residence. I will be recusing myself from that item.

Okay. Uh the chair recognizes uh Commissioner Chrisman's conflict and is so noted that uh she will abstain for participation on item number is that 11A1. Yes. Okay. Um this is the time allotted for public statements or comments on all items other than public hearing items. Is there any anyone in the chamber wishing to be heard? I have a card from James McGillis.

As you know, our city council recently ignored all four neighborhood councils and your unanimous vote regarding short-term rentals in Semi Valley. In an affront to your decision, one council member attempted to rewrite your decision as a 4 to1 vote, even though that planning commissioner was not present and did not vote. To my knowledge, each of you is appointed for a four-year term, which coincides with the election and district of each council member. Although each of you are free to vote as you please, to be reappointed, alignment with your appointed count appointed council member puts pressure on you to vote the way they might like. Months ago, one city council member told me that if the planning commission voted to ban short-term rentals, there's no way that the city council would go against that decision. Since your independent decision was ignored and overridden by the city council, I hope that frees you to vote your conscience, not your political loyalties. Although the public may not be aware, not only are you the planning commission, but you're also the city's mature tree preservation ordinance overseer, and you oversee Arbor Day activities for the city. Earlier this month, our mayor accepted the 26th annual Tree City USA award. There was also a public proclamation regarding the city's participation in Arbor Day activities. And Joanie Mitchell's classic song, Big Yellow Taxi, take down all the trees and put them in a tree museum, charge the people a dollar and a half just to see them. Pave paradise, put up a parking lot. Tonight, we shall see if Semi Valley's current motto of Tree City USA should be replaced with Semi Valley, we never met a developer we didn't like. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public statements? Uh, do you have a card?

Okay. Right person, wrong item. Okay, got it. All right. Uh correspondence. Is there any correspondence from the deputy director, city planner? Yes, Chairman Kennedy and members of the planning commission. We do have one supplemental staff report for agenda item 11 A2. We provided that to you here at your desk and uh copy is provided out in the lobby for the public. Everybody get that?

This is regarding the um Oak Road project. Okay, next item is the consent calendar. Uh item number Oh, that was item number nine, right? Any consent calendar items? I I show no consent calendar items here. Correct. Uh, continued business. Next item, item 10, continued business. I show no continued business here. Is that correct? Okay. New business. Uh, next item, item 11, new business. Item 11. A.1, public hearings. At this this is the time and place uh set for a public hearing on the consideration of planned development permit modification PD-S-2025-000013. Are there any exparte communications to report? Uh I have something to report um on this. Uh I I was contacted by a resident and um got an explanation. They're an original resident uh from uh the beginning up to date and their perspective on uh this development. All right. Item C. May we have an oral report on this matter by staff?

Yes, Chair Person Kennedy, members of the planning commission. Yes, this is the um WRL CanyonWoodlands application to um consider the plan development permit to um approve the 21 single family house designs on the estate lots up in the RunL Canyon specific plan area. And our assistant planner Sarah Martinez will be having a presentation. And this is Sarah's been here over two years now and this is her first official planning commission presentation. So, uh, take it away, Sarah.

Good evening, planning commissioners. Tonight we will be reviewing a request for a modification to the master plan development permit PD-9- S-930 for the construction of detached single family residences on 21 of the 25 existing estate lots located within the RL Canyon specific plan area. The subject modification request involves only the site designs and architecture for the proposed homes on existing lots. No additional homes are being proposed. In 2004, the city council approved the tenative map and the master plan development permit for the project in conjunction with approvals of the development agreement. the Runo Canyon specific plan, also referred to as the Woodlands development, and certifying the final environmental impact report. Once completed, the project will contain 461 dwelling units along with other amenities. While the project is generally complete, there are still 25 residential estate lots, 138 attached senior condominiums, and a senior recreation facility pending construction. Site grading and infrastructure associated with the project approvals have been previously constructed. Four of the residential estate lots are in building permit plan check. The remainder of the residential estate lots are the subject of this application. The proposed one and twotory homes will be situated on residential estate lots spread across the community mainly adjacent to existing homes serving as a

transition between single family neighborhoods and open space. They are located in planning areas one, planning areas 10, planning area 6, and planning area 7 as shown on the screen. The site includes residential estate lots that range from 40,759 ft to 398,138 ft. The applicant proposes four distinct models offered in different color elevation schemes and architectural design styles. The floor area ranges from 3,692 ft to 4,890 ft. The proposed architectural design styles are Spanish colonial, English country, and craftsman. The first proposed design reflects the characteristics of the Spanish colonial style through the incorporation of low S profile concrete roof tiles, decorative clay piping details, raw iron gabled end details and arches which are typical of this architectural style. The next proposed design reflects the characteristics of the English country style through the incorporation of steeply pitched roofs, grouped windows, and brick veneer on the first story element of the home and fiber fiber cement board and batten siding on the upper story which are common features of this architectural style. The final design option reflects the characteristics of the craftsman style through the incorporation of gabled roofs with porches, masonry veneer

columns and the facades are combination of materials including masonry veneer stucco fiber cement lap siding and board and batten siding which are typical of this architectural style. To achieve four-sided architecture, the applicant has agreed to include architectural enhancements on the side and rear elevations, including decorative guardrails, recessed windows, brick veneer treatments, and masonry veneer column detailing in accordance with condition asterric a-12. As a reminder, to approve the project, it must meet the required findings that are equivalent to those required for the original permit as outlined in the development agreement. This includes a modification to a planned development permit and compliance with the hillside performance standards set forth in the 2004 Seami Valley Municipal Code. Staff has determined the proposed project meets the required findings as detailed in the resolution. Staff recommends the planning commission adopt a resolution approving the proposed plan development permit modification and reuse of the certified final environmental impact report and addendum. This concludes staff's presentation and we are available for questions. Any commissioner questions for staff on this? Ken?

Um, it's not so much a question, but if you could just it, this is a high fire danger zone. Um, could you just really, and I know this is in the staff report, but just could you just real briefly just kind of go over the fire safety um features of this these homes? just real quickly just some of the elements that are in this project in these buildings if that's okay and I I know it's in the report but just for the benefit of the people that are here. So

yeah, so for the homes in general, they'll go through plan check and they'll be routed to the fire department and also each um home each landscape plan will also go to the fire department to ensure that they're compliant because they are in a very high fire hazard zone. So as mentioned um the the there's two aspects to it. One is the construction of the home and the other aspect is the landscaping. The landscaping will need to re meet the three different zones the zero zone the 5ft zone and the 20ft zone along with fuel modification requirements. Um then also for this the homes they will have to be sprinklered uh non-combustible siding. Um it's I think chapter 7A of the building code. Um vents will need to be screened. Uh non-combustible roofs. Um all those will be um part of the conditions of approval from the fire department and uh part of the building plan check process.

Thank you. Commissioner Tullson, just real quick and Aaron on the U landscaping uh wooden fencing allowed not allowed not allowed in the very high fire as it and they're also not proposing wooden fencing as well.

Any other questions of staff? Okay. At this time, we'll open uh the public testimony portion of the hearing. Would the applicant like to present the project?

Good evening, Chair Kennedy and uh planning commissioners. My name is Jordan Ferguson. I'm a partner at Proopio and I'm here representing Canyon this evening. Uh just wanted to start out by saying um we are here and we're here about a month ahead of our schedule through the development agreement and that is a credit to staff. We've been working really closely with staff on this uh city manager and the city attorney, but uh this evening specifically Sarah and Aaron have been wonderful. Um and so we can't thank them enough. We would not be here without staff. Uh and so uh thank you and Sarah, wonderful job on your first presentation. Um so just getting that out of the way. Um a bit of background. Uh Sarah covered it pretty well, but I'll give you the the the the quick bit again. Um the project has been in development for uh quite some time with initial approvals granted back in 2004. The overall project will contain 461 dwelling units uh along with associated amenities. As Sarah already said, nearly 300 of those units are completed. What remains are the 138 senior condominiums and the 25 estate homes. Uh, as Sarah also said, four of those 25 homes are already in building permit plan check and we're expecting to have those constructed by the end of the year. Um, approval of those four homes was was done again by staff and and we've had a great experience working with them on those and we expect hopefully to have the same for the next 21. Um, so the remaining 21 homes are what are before you this evening. Your comments uh are hopefully going to um get us to the finish line so that we can get started building these things as soon as possible. Um we are, as Sarah said, requesting a modification to the master plan development uh permit. This modification involves only the layout of each home and the architecture for the proposed homes. Um staff has identified the uh the four corrections that you saw that they would like added and we've incorporated all of those already into the plans. So we are prepared to address all those corrections this evening. Um at this point, I'm going to turn things over to Gary Cunningham, the VP of architecture at WHA Architects, and he's going to walk us through the specifics. Both Gary and myself are happy to answer

any questions that you may have once his presentation is done. Thank you so much again. And I missed your name. Can you give it to me really quick? Jordan Ferguson. Jordan, thank you. Of course.

Good evening. My name is Gary Cunning Cunningham, vice president of architecture for WHA. Sarah, very nice presentation. had all the detail and the elements and you've covered most of the almost every item I had that if I thought I had to cover with that. Um, are you able to bring up the PowerPoint or is there anything to show? If not, that's perfectly fine. Oh, no problem. Okay. So, just to add to Sarah's very detailed report, um the ability of the home buyer or applicant to come out and build these homes. Again, these are custom lights lots. Each house has the ability to be customized at a buyer's profile or a choice. We have pre-selected and identified homes on the plans or on the lots with a style, a plan, and a color scheme. Perfect. Perfect slide. This slide here presents on the left the lot information. The right side of the slide is the lot options. As you can tell vertically, it's listed as plans. Corresponding color goes with a particular elevation style, but you'll see in bold down each column. A particular lot has been identified as pre-plotted. working with my staff, we've identified for the best of the blending in with the community not to repeat homes directly across with the same style, same elevation, color, etc. So, we pre-plotted. However, a homeowner if would like to customize and work with staff, they're have the ability to select a home, select its color within its style and its supporting color that's in the back of the exhibit. which is all of our color schemes. However, the final selection has to be finalized through staff. So, it just gives the opportunity

to allow each lot to be customized. I.e. these are custom homes, custom lots. So, that was one of the main things I wanted to point out that the buyers have those options or lot options. Sarah did mention that the architecture is 360 degrees. So everything that that you find elements on the front is continue to wrap around the sides and rear of the home. So the level of detail is using fire resistive or ignition resistive materials to clarify uh the earlier question by staff. One additional thing that it helps is the eve or the rake of the of the rafter tails have been covered with stucco. that will help any kind of fire embers from getting caught. This is a ventless attic, so fire embers will not actually get into the attic and where most house fires start wildfires. So, this is a ventless attic system. Again, another way to help make sure the house is fire resistive for the community. Um, I'm available for any specific questions, but Sarah, thank you. you did a very detailed for your first one and that was just the additional information I wanted to point out that's available to the buyers. Thank you.

Thank you. I have another uh speaking card here from um Craig Rurn. Good evening everyone. I just have a couple questions and I'm a resident where they're doing this and actually my house backs up to several of these lots. One question I have is how old is the environmental report that we're using? Do we know how old that is? You said it was 2004.

Yeah, they they'll get back to you with that answer. Um, from what I read, typically that report's good for three to five years, and I believe their report's three times that age at least. Um, does their report ref um, factor in changes in um, the wildlife that's prospered since those lots have been empty? There's deer that go back there. There's coyotes, there's hawks, raccoons. Um, I'm wondering about the streets. They talked about the house, but they didn't talk about the streets and how we're getting to those houses. Um, regarding fire, my fire insurance is $12,000 a year State Farm. That's a thousand a month and I'm a ways away from the mountains. So, I don't know if anybody's addressed that. Um, has anybody factored in climate change? I mean, we have more winds than we've ever had and I've lived out here my whole life. And then, um, the placement of the houses, they haven't really said, you know, where they're going to face or how the streets are going to go there. So, I'm kind of wishing that we got some of that information, too. That's all I have. Thank you for your time.

Great. Thank you. Okay. Uh, that's all the cards I have except for Matt Sier who will hold you in obeyance unless you'd like to speak now. Okay. Uh are there any questions uh for the applicants from commissioners?

No, not at this time. I don't The questions that were asked of staff, will they be addressing that report? Yes, that's uh I think our uh agenda item past the next one here, right where we at? Yeah. Okay. Is that where we're at now? Okay. So, are there any comments from staff regarding statements made during the public hearing?

Sure. With regard to the ER, the original ER was certified in 2004. The subsequent addendum was certified in 2012. Um, as far as staff is aware, there's no I'm not aware of any uh three-year deadline for EIS. Um, we did analyze the project under SEO guidelines section 15162 uh which allows us to reuse an environmental document for a project uh subsequent to those findings. And we basically have to to give a simple answer. We have to make sure that the there are no um and Carl may correct me on this that there aren't any new significant unusual circumstances on for this project. Uh the homes are going on lots that are already graded. Uh deer may cross AC come across um but you know that tends to happen. Um, so there's no there's really no um there's no apart from doing the pad certification and things like that, there's no additional grading. Uh, so staff did not identify any unusual environmental circumstances that prevented us from utilize reutilizing the environmental document.

Um, sorry, one last thing. Um, and in regards to the placement of the homes in the exhibits, it shows exactly where the homes are going to be placed and we made sure that they were in they were in compliance with Seami Valley Municipal Code the 2004 and also the Ronal Canyon specific plan. So they required 20 foot rear and front yard setbacks and 10-ft side uh setbacks. So, uh, maybe the question was more along orientation on the lot of out the setbacks.

Uh, yes. So, the orientation was also shown on the exhibits. Um, I do have a a photo here. It's of the of a landscape plan, but it shows the orientation of the lot. Just give me one second. So this lot, lot 15, it shows that it's facing the culde-sac. If you look at the civil plans which are at the very end of the exhibits, it shows it more clearly, but this is just an example.

So as an example on on this particular lot that the only thing that might change is a reverse floor plan of the same right plan. Yeah. just a reverse. Okay. Yeah, you got it. Um and in regard to the some of the other additional comments, uh the access roads are as they're constructed. Um there's no change to that. Um and in terms of fire insurance, that's beyond the city's purview. Thank you. Uh would the applicant like to respond to any of the comments regarding statements made during the public hearing?

Yes. Just just to reiterate that yes, we do have all the orientations in the exhibits uh and a detailed I believe it's a 96 page uh plan set that's been provided to the commission as well. Um we also I can plug in and go through uh the various angles as needed, but I don't think that that's where we are. So just wanted to let you know that if you do have specific questions about a lot, we can go there.

Thank you. I remember seeing that. Okay. If there are no further questions, we will close the public testimony portion of the hearing. We did have is this? No, that's another one. Okay. Um, are there any comments or questions from members of the planning commission at this time?

I'll go. Um I I uh appreciate all the hard work from staff and from the applicant. I think the u project is uh in compliance with what we are trying to move forward with and uh they've uh addressed everything. The one thing that might happen is maybe work with some of the residents to share with them the information on placement of properties or roads of that kind. But uh in terms of uh variableness with the different three different uh styles or plans with the variation to u make sure that the two are not the same. Uh I think that's fantastic and um the 360 degree uh articulation is fantastic and the fire uh constraints that they're trying to address is spot on. Well, being the old-timer up here, I think this is the third or fourth time that I've seen parts of this project. Um, I really appreciate the fire part of it. And since we're really just looking at the um layout of the of the homes and the landscape project or the landscape part of it, I really appreciate it. One of the things I really appreciate on the on the homes themselves is the fact that it is four-sided architecture and I really appreciate the architect that that back in 2012 the architect paid attention to the to the comments that we we said because I can see those elements incorporated into it and I really appreciate that part of it. It's that that's definitely something that uh I see there and I appreciate that and the landscaping looks great. I mean, so I'm hoping that all that pans out the way it is. And and I reiterate what uh Commissioner Tullson said. I hope that um that orientation that just the Mr.

Rabburn, I hope that you would just make sure that he gets, you know, just send them PDF or something of those to make sure that he knows where the orientation is or that, you know, we make sure that he gets that so he knows where those uh roads are and the orientation of the homes. I think that might make him feel a little more comfortable with, you know, the layout of this project. At least that that's an easy thing to do, I think. So, um, but other than that, I I think this is this is a good start to getting this project a little farther down the road. So, I think that's a good thing. So, that's where I stand on it. Well, I know that uh the last time we talked about this, we uh kind of pulled the rug a little bit, went from five years to, you know, two. I'm sure the council adjusted that a little bit, but I'd like to see the progress here. I know this special meeting is very focused just on these 21 of the 25 lots and and not everything else that uh is going on with the other parts of the development. So, I appreciate the focus on that. And I know what uh at a short future date we'll be taking a look at the rest of the development. Uh with that said, um let's uh may I have a uh reading of the resolution. Resolution number SVPC062026, a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Seami Valley approving planned development permit modification PDS 2025 0013 and reuse of the certified final environmental impact report and addendum. Sorry, I'm just looking for the page.

Commissioner Rice. Um, okay, here we go. Uh, I move to adopt a resolution approving PDS um 2025-000013 and reuse of the certified final environmental impact report and addendum.

I'll second. I was going to ask for a second. Thank you, Tlsson. Uh, let's uh call for a vote. Oh, I didn't lock it. That's your final answer.

The vote passes with Commissioner Chrisman abstaining. Uh the appeal period for uh PD-S-2025-000013 is 14 calendar days. Next item is 11- A-2. This is the time and place set for public hearing on the consideration of GPA-2024-00001 Z-S2024-00003 and oh, there's more. PD-S-2024-00005 and TT-2024-00004 and the determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Are there any exparte communications to report? Um I did have email from Mr. Bright um which I responded to. Um but that's the extent of it. So you got the same email.

I got the same email. I didn't.

John, they don't like you. Okay. Uh I uh spoke I drove the site and spent uh 30 40 maybe 50 minutes out there uh checking it out again. I think that's the fourth time I've driven the site. and uh the neighbor to the south across the wash uh came out and we had a lengthy conversation. Uh his family goes back many many years on that site. So that's all I have to report on that. Um may we have an oral report from oral report on this matter from staff? Got a quick reading. Yes, Chairman Kennedy, members of the planning commission, this is uh the long- aaited application um for the 60-unit townhouse project on at the south end of Oak Road. Our principal planner, Nar Gusa, has tonight's presentation. Good evening, planning commissioners. Tonight, we'll be reviewing a request for a general plan amendment, a zone change, a plan development permit, and tentative map to allow the construction of a 60 unit for sale multif family condominium project with three affordable units for qualified very lowincome home buyers and a determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. The associated affordable housing agreement will be considered by the city council. As you can see here, the site encompasses four parcels located southeast of the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Yusede Avenue. The site is accessed via Oak Road, which is a private roadway that extends north south along the eastern boundary of the site. The site is bordered by a vacant residential lot to the north, mobile home residences to the east, single family residences to the south, and multif family apartments to the west. The Aoya semifl flood control channel traverses the site in an east-west

direction and separates the three northern parcels from the southern parcel. This slide shows some photographs of the site. On the left is a view looking south from 1761 Oak Road. On the right is looking northwest from 1801 Oak Road. The current general plan land use designations are split amongst the four parcels for the site. The northernmost two parcels which are 1.52 acres are medium density residential with an allowable density of 3.6 to 5 units per acre. The two southern parcels comprising 3.78 acres are moderate density residential with an allowable density of 5.1 to 10 units per acre. The requested general plan amendment will change the land use of the parcels to highdensity residential which would be 10.1 to 20 units per acre. Similarly, the current zoning designations are also split amongst the four parcels for the site. The northern two most parcels are zoned residential medium density RM and the two southern parcels are zoned residential moderate density RON. The proposed zone change will change the land use for the site to residential high density. The project includes 57 detached market rate town homes with 3 to four bedrooms. These units, plans 1 through 3 in the table, will range from approximately 1,700 to 2,000 square ft with an attached two-car garage. The three 720 ft affordable units will be in a triplex building and each will have a onecar garage. 157 total parking spaces are provided on site and that includes the garage spaces. As mentioned before, site access will be via Oak Road. Each detached unit will have a small private backyard, as you

can see on this site plan. Amenities on the site will include a larger primary community open space area on the eastern end of the property with a shade structure, barbecue island with a picnic and gathering area. A secondary smaller community space will be located to the south. 20 guest parking spaces will be provided adjacent to the recreation areas. Shown on the screen is a streetscape of four of the units looking south on the site from Oak Road. The units will range from 25 ft to 27 ft in height. The building designs will be a modern and traditional farmhouse. Each design will have two building styles and two color variations as shown here. The modern farmhouse on the left will have a mixture of vertical board and batton siding and stco. And the traditional farmhouse on the right will have horizontal siding and stco. The units will have multiplane roofs with concrete roof style roof tiles, decorative entry doors, and standing seam metal roofs on the first story as shown. The triplex building will include similar architectural details with bay windows, decorative light fixtures, and recess windows. A tree report was prepared by Richard Campbell, a California registered landscape architect and consulting arborist, and included in the staff report. The site currently has 53 mature trees with six valley oaks. 52 trees will be removed, including five valley oaks, as shown here in the red circles. The city's mature tree preservation regulations require the applicant to replace the removed trees with 36-in minimum box trees planted on site. The value of the planted trees has to be up to the appraised value of the trees being removed. If there is insufficient space on the site to meet this requirement, they can contribute to the

city's tree fund. The total replacement value is approximately $533,000. The project is providing for three for four for sale affordable housing units for qualified very lowincome by home buyers. This would be 5% of the 60 units. This qualifies the project for a density bonus increase, modified parking requirements, one incentive or concession, and multi multiple waiverss as long as the waiverss do not impose a life or safety hazard. This is pursuant to state law. Note that no density bonus is being requested. A concession or incentive allows modification of development standards that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing. The waiverss of a development standards that physically preclude the construction of a project. In general, denial of a concession of waver requires findings that it would have a specific adverse impact on the health, safety or physical environment for which there is no mitigation or that it is not required because it would not preclude construction of the project. The applicant has requested one incentive and four waiverss. It should be noted that the project is not subject to the state housing accountability act due to due to the requested general plan amendment and zone change. The incentive request is to deviate from the development code requirement that multif family units be attached like the triplex unit on the left. The 57 market units, an example of which is shown on the right, will not meet this requirement. A waiver is also being requested for the code requirement for a 20ft front yard setback. The request is to allow a setback of 10 ft to the property line shown in blue. This reduced setback would be adjacent to landscaping for the

town home construction current town home project currently under construction to the north. The units there would be separated by 20 ft and a 6ft block wall. A waiver is being requested for the code requirement for a minimum interior sideyard setback of 15 ft. The request is to allow a setback of 10 ft to the property line shown in blue. This reduced setback would be adjacent to parking spaces and the access driveway for the Sage Creek Apartments and the proposed units would be approximately 60 ft from the apartment building. The third waiver being requested is for the code requirement that the minimum separation between primary structures be 20 ft and instead to allow a separation of 7 ft as shown here. And the fourth and final waiver request is being is for the code requirement that a minimum single car garage have an interior clearance of width of 12 ft. A width of 10 ft will be provided. An initial study was prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. No significant impacts were identified and additional project design features were incorporated as conditions to avoid unforeseen environmental impacts. The change to the general plan triggered tribal consultation as required by state law SB18. The city provided project materials including a site plan and the cultural resources study to 15 tribes on December 17, 2025. Consultation with the tribes closed on March 18, 2026. The Fernandino Tatavium Band of Mission Indians requested tribal monitoring during grading and ground disturbance activities in case of discovery of tribal resources. This requirement has been added as a condition. The project qualifies for the statutory

exemption under public resources section 211080.66 for urban infill housing development projects. This is signed into law in 2025 pursuant to state assembly bill AB130 and SB foren that one. Sorry. Um AB130. As a reminder, to approve the project, it must meet the required findings for a general plan amendment, zone change, plan development permit, and tentive map findings as detailed in the general plan and the semi valley municipal code. Staff has determined the proposed project meets the required findings as detailed in the resolution. Staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending that the city council approve the proposed general plan amendment, the zone change plan development permit and tentative map and make a determination that the project is categorically exempt from SQA. This concludes D's presentation and we are available for questions. go here. Um, thank you. Uh, any commissioner questions of of staff on this, uh, project?

I reserve my questions for later. Ken's reserving questions. I did I did have one in driving this site. Um, I I noticed that the Army Corps of Engineers put that flood control channel in there. Gosh knows wind. Um and there is a not so much a bridge but a cap that goes across that uh flood control channel that um accesses the the lots beyond on the south side. Uh are there going to be any improvements to that or safety issues involved with the continuing to use that as a crossing?

There are no improvements proposed to that. Let me just pull up an exhibit. So, the improvements stop at lot one, which is this property line here. There will be a gap in the block wall and there will be a driveway connection to that bridge that you can see here. Um, that is about it in terms of proposed um improvements. Yeah, just it it looked a little shaky to me. So I there's how many residential lots beyond? Believe there's two. Two.

Yeah. Okay. I I have a question too. When when you're approaching this for these four lots, if you can pull up that um I think it's figure one. In the staff report, it's figure one. Does the green represent the road? Because when when I drove it, the road is not straight. It it kind of curves up. Um that's because the site is under construction to the north. So, they've rerouted the road. Um and and the road will be straight. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. There's big holes in the way right now. Um, that's I I'll reserve my questions as well. Commissioner Toulson. Okay. Okay. At this time, uh, we'll open the, uh, public testimony portion of the hearing. Would the applicant like to present the project? And I do have some speaking cards here uh from uh the applicant as well, but I'll let you guys sort yourself out. Thank you. Just need to load up our slides here. question. I did get a little blink here.

Thank you. Hello everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts on our project.

Uh could you introduce yourself? Yep, it's my next line. My name is Sal Penza and I'm the manager of the applicant Century Property Group. Staff has done an excellent job of presenting the proposed project. We have spent years working with them on various land plans and product types to find the most suitable project. In January of 2023, city council unanimously supported our general plan amendment and zone change at the pre-screen hearing. Our first application was submitted in May of 2024 and we were deemed complete in March of 2026. On April 14th, the neighborhood council number two recommended approval of the project. As you can imagine, we are pleased to be here after nearly four years. We are currently zoned residential, allowing for up to 49 homes on the entire property without a density bonus. The new zoning allows our 60 home project will be for sale on about 4.5 acres. It matches the zoning as Narin mentioned to the north where 70 town homes are being constructed and the property to the west with existing apartments. Based on the adjacent uses, we think our request is logical and compatible with the neighborhood. Based on our market research and cost analysis, home buyers are starved for a product that offers the benefits of single family living at a much lower price. They will likely qualify for FH FHA financing and the requested incentive makes these affordable by design homes possible. The two-story affordable homes are designed to meet an underserved population who want the American dream of home ownership but cannot qualify for moderate income units due to lack of down payment or insufficient income. Smaller units like this make that dream possible.

I'd like to share some of the many benefits of the project. First, our nation, California, and even Semi Valley suffer from an ongoing housing crisis. Building the right project in the right location help solve that problem. To that end, we are proposing 57 detached homes that will be offered in a primarily residential area that will promote attainable home ownership. We also included three affordable homes that will be deed restricted for very lowincome homeowners. Oak Road is currently a substandard road that several property owners need for access. We entered into an egress, ingress, utility easement, and cost sharing agreement with City Ventures, the developer to the north to ensure the orderly installation of Oak Road that will now be a 30- foot wide two-lane road that extends all the way to Los Angeles Avenue. In addition, the internal circulation includes a loop road for communion access for the residents and the Ventura County Fire Department. We are providing an easement along the south side of the channel for the trail to promote connectivity in accordance with the Aoyo Greenway specific plan. It sounds minor, but each unit will also include a security device like a Ring camera to promote safety. and 95% of the homes have three or four bedrooms deserve a variety of residents and promote some of the modern work from home opportunities. We're adding 67,000 square ft of new landscape that includes two large common areas, a shade structure, barbecue, picnic tables, benches, play amenities, and turf, all which will be maintained by the HOA. We're also conditioned, as Nurin mentioned, to invest 533,000 or so in

mature trees to be planted on site or contribute to the city's tree fund. We will, of course, abide by the city's existing tree ordinance. As I noted before, City Ventures is building 73 town homes, including moderate incomes. The city recently upzoned the property to residential high density, the same zone we're requesting. Our project is similar, but it's also very different. We're lower density. We're at 13.4 dwelling units per acre. They're at 19. Ours are twotory for sale detach homes. Even though City Ventures is doing threetory towns. Ours have private backyards, so they have private open space. They each have a twocar sideby-side garage. It is a lower cost to build, so we could pass that on to the home buyer compared to a three-story town. Fire insurance, as one of the gentlemen mentioned earlier, has become a real issue with uh high fire zones. The availability and the cost. Detached homes allow for attainable uh insurance without paying $1,000 a month. We also have additional parking uh above the requirement. We have 11 additional spaces above the requirement. We have more common open space with amenities. And we did coordinate quite a bit with city ventures. Uh we want to make sure that the transition between the projects, especially the 30-foot uh world that's being widened, um helps. It it helps that we have the same civil engineers so we're able to connect with the with all their drawings. Uh exactly. While the project qualifies for a SQL exemption, we have commission in best-in-class experts to prepare numerous technical studies as I listed here.

I'd also like to invite our architect, civil engineer, and land use council to share some of their thoughts. I am of course available for questions. Thank you. Thank you. You lost it somehow. Oh, screen. Are you okay using that?

Yep. Yeah. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Alan Scales, principal and architect with KTGY. I'd like to walk you through a few of the items we've um spent so much time designing here and we'll we'll sort of go through an overview of how we've laid out the site plan, how the homes live, and then we'll touch on the architecture a little bit. You can see here on the screen, the site plan itself uh consists of 60 total homes. As was mentioned before, we are providing home ownership opportunities here. These are all for sale homes. Um what was important to us in the initial steps of creating the site plan is thinking about the context. Um S mentioned that we have twotory homes here. So we're we're transitioning from the threetory that's under construction now dropping down to a two-story scale to to be mindful of the context around us. What was um very important to us in the process of laying out the site plan was detached homes which comes with privatized open space. So private backyards that was a significant um design accomplishment for this site providing a majority of these homes with those private rear yards. On top of that, we have fairly significant common open spaces, and you can see that here in the the large darker green areas. Uh we have connected sidewalks and streets. You'll see guest parking um adjacent to those open spaces. So, they're they're intended to be open and used by the community. We have a total of four plan types on site. Uh we range, as mentioned before, from onebedrooms up to four bedroomedroom homes. uh we have at grade living for the majority of these homes. So those private u rear yards access living

dining kitchen spaces. So there's an activity the indooroutdoor relationship was important in that uh as a design feature. I'm going to flip to the next slide I think. Is it down? So it's not quite working. Let's see. do that. Guess I'll just go the slow route. Sorry about that. Uh you saw the street scene earlier. This gives you an indication of the architecture um in the street scene. So we have very purposefully designed the homes to have front doors facing the streets, the park spaces, the open spaces, etc. And you can see that on here. um front doors and a variety of architectural details and movement in the facades. I'll get into some of those details here in the next couple of slides. These next couple of slides show you typical homes. Um we're using a farmhouse aesthetic. Uh we've looked at both a modern interpretation of farmhouse as well as a more traditional um farmhouse. And you'll see that in these two slides. We are looking at articulating those facades on all sides including materials such as stucco, horizontal sighting, board and batten, numerous other corbal details, etc. And as we move further through my presentation, you start to see some of those delight the details highlighted here um showing the differences. We have um a total of four different color schemes on top of this. So you'll see a variety of colors. You'll see a variety of details. And uh and really importantly beyond that, it's the massing. There's movement in the roof line and the eve line to create variety

rather than all of the same. So this is showing our modern farmhouse aesthetics. We have a little cleaner line, tighter roof eaves, etc. Some of the the metal roof details and corbling awnings etc convey a slightly more modern take on farmhouse where this next slide shows you a little bit more detail on the traditional. So you'll start to see some variation of a similar floor plan, but you'll see the variation in the the roof line starting to move that up and down a little bit differently, moving into different types of sightings and materials to help articulate those differences. And with that said, I'm happy to answer any questions as we conclude the presentation. This last slide shows you what the park off of our main 30-foot entry drive would look like. Again, front doors facing. You can see the the blue door here and few doors in the background fronting that park space to help activate the space. Move that. Move on to the next uh portion of our presentation. Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. Tim Hutter. I'm a partner at Alan Matkins and um here just to talk to you a little bit about the density bonus component of the project. Um as you heard this is a density bonus project. It is providing very low income units. Um it is not taking any additional units by virtue of the density bonus. Um the base case today for the project would be a a base density of 46 units. If you were to include the three affordable units as part of the 46, uh, don't make lawyers do math, but you would get a 22.5% bonus and be up to 57 units. So, what we're talking about here with a proposed density at of 60 is something that's easily achievable given the current um, zoning if you were to use a density bonus. In fact, if you wanted to take the existing uh density of 46 units and using state double density bonus under AB 1287, you could get all the way up to 92 uh units. So, there are some limitations with this site obviously because of fire access and and the like. And that's part of the reason why we're ending up at the the unit count of 60, but um rest assured there are probably others uh in the development community who would be pushing the limits a little bit more than these guys are. Um, I also wanted to kind of frame this in in terms of where the city is. Um, I'm sure you guys are hearing about this all the time, but you know, the city's latest 2025 housing progress report um reflects the city's RENA goal um of the different income categories. In fact, 749 uh units were allocated to the city as part of this most recent cycle. And that's just in the very low income category. Um, to date, just 107 units have been permitted. That's 14.3% of the goal. that's the lowest percentage of any category. Doing better in the low income category and actually even in the moderate income category um and of course above moderate. So that sort of speaks to um some of the struggle and and the the reason for the why we think

the very low-inccome units are important. Um, I also wanted to raise specific to ownership units, which I don't see very much frankly in my business, even though I do density bonus all day long, is the city's 2024 to 2025 annual survey reflected on the available ownership units that are affordable in the city. Found that there were just 130 130 such units, affordable units, um, that are designated and restricted and that the turnover for those is 76%. meaning that one unit out of those 130 becomes available every year. I don't know how accurate that statistic is. Maybe in a given year you might get two, but these guys are offering three and they're offering three at a particular size um you know that is more of the condo type entrylevel uh unit that you might see in in other uh jurisdictions. So, the reason why I raised those statistics is kind of to show that, you know, this speaks to the city's need for units like this for affordable production, um, in addition to the state law requirements that come with density bonus, this is a project that really is providing something that the city's looking for and and you know, under state law is is sort of trying to target. So, we urge the uh, planning commission to heed staff's recommendation and we're here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Any other uh applicant speakers? Is this Joy? do this.

Good evening, commissioners and city staff. My name is Joy Hendricks from CNV Consulting. We are the civil engineers on this uh development. Uh we've taken great care and consideration on the design of this development. In addition, CNV Consulting was a civil engineer for the Northerly uh city ventures project. And so that allowed us to incorporate um both the uh connectivity, the grading and the te design into this community. Uh Oak Road as noted previously is a primary access point to the site and it has been widened to match the layout and connectivity for the city venture site. Um this was required by city staff traffic division and um has allows the main drive aisle loop to um access multiple points in our site. So um in addition the uh we've had significant coordination with Ventura County Fire Department in terms of access fire prevention hydrant locations throughout our uh the proposed site. utilities were located uh located within the northerly portion of Oakward Oak Road, excuse me, were extended to this future development um during the design stage um with City Ventures. So, this allows um and limits the potential construction uh in North Oak Road and um any disturbance to future homeowners. Golden State Water Company is a water purveyor for this area and we've worked with them to extend a proposed connection for this development. Uh public water will loop through our

community and uh provide uh hydrants and water services to each unit. The existing sewer uh which is city uh public sewer runs through Oak Road, flows south and then continues east through the mobile home community and provides uh connections to for the development. Uh the site has also been graded to follow the natural topography of the site which drains in the southwesterly direction. Uh this allows us to limit fill to the site retaining walls and maintain the existing drainage pattern. In addition, since we were the engineers for City Ventures, we have a uh clear understanding of the drainage uh that's offsite and running onto our site. So, we're able to pick it up and take it through the development. Uh we are proposing a private underground storm drain system that will collect, convey and treat the storm water. Per the city's uh drainage policy, we are proposing underground detention to mitigate and u handle the peak runoff and volume. So as a result uh the site will reduce the runoff tributary to the channel. Uh thank you for your time. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you so much. Thank you. I show one more uh speaker card from the applicant. Is it Kurt Randall or

did you Oh, okay. Thank you. Should I go to public comments? Yes. At this time, uh, are there any questions for the applicant, the commissioners? I got one question for, uh, Joy. Um, the utilities are going to be all underground, electrical, no wires above. Thank you, Ivana. Excuse me. U,

I have a question for the applicant. Are there going to be some kind of gates or walls in between two town homes? Maybe there's a slide for you. May not be on the landscape plan, but yeah. Yeah, there they are. So, you can see there's uh little gates between the houses. So, the and they're going to be standard six feet tall. Um six six. Yes.

And I have another question since you're here and maybe that's for the staff. Uh is the private is the road of 30 ft private road or so the HOA is going to be maintaining that road. Thank you. Okay. Don't go anywhere yet. I like that slide. Okay. Um, and looking at the uh land as it's platted, the uh land to the south across the wash, that triangle piece, that's part of this parcel as well. Correct.

Uh, it's uh it's on its own parcel, but uh but common ownership um it's uh intended and I think N mentioned this in the staff report that um if and when there's potential access to get there, then we could develop that site. But currently it's there's not a enough uh access to to build anything there. And I think that was my earlier bridge cap question uh trying to get to that site. Yeah, there there that's currently a uh a bridge that's used by uh the two residents that are to the south. Um as well as the mail truck and garbage and everything. So it's it's been there for since the 70s, I think.

Yeah, that would be about right. Um, so, uh, as far as maintenance goes for that property, it's un is that going to, uh, kick back to the HOA or that's not part of the homeowners association? Uh, um, well, we're hoping that, uh, it doesn't take too long to find that access, but, uh, if it we we're happy to include it in the HOA or provide the, you know, agreement with the city to make sure it's maintained properly. And this may be the incorrect question, but when figuring out uh the density uh of the uh project, was that uh additional land included in the density calculations or is it just the uh structured area?

Understand the question. So, it depends on where you're looking. Um I believe there's it's 4.4 acres of land north of the channel and there's 60 units there. That's the 13.4 to the acre. um the whole site is getting uh you reszoneed for higher density. Uh without that higher density then there's not enough units to to build on the triangle piece. So that's one of the reasons why the higher density requirement.

That's the reason for my question. Thank you. Just really quickly just for clarification, uh, Commissioner Toulson asked a question of the applicant and the applicant wasn't at the microphone. Just for so just for clarification, the um applicant said that the utilities would be undergrounded. Okay, that is correct.

I have three more questions that are all like together as one. Do you know how estimate estimated costs of the HOA would be a month? Uh we have not done an HOA budget. That usually happens later when you have the uh final landscape drawings especially because it's expensive to maintain that. Um on projects like this that we've done in the past that it's probably between between 200 and 300 a month. Are they going to be the same for uh the lowinccome housing? Uh not usually. Um depends on how the HOA is set up, but in the past we've set it up in um so it's based on size of the unit. Uh so they would actually pay a lot less.

Okay. Thank you. And what are the estimated then? I know it's in the staff report, but for the rest of the people, what are the estimated prices for the regular versus uh in low income housing? Um, so we don't know exactly yet, but uh because it's going to be a little while before we actually go to sale, but um it's probably in the mid7s to to high sevens. And the market income and the low income there's a calculation for it. My understanding it's around $100,000. Nin might have a better moment it's around $130,000 for the low for each low-inccome unit. Thank you.

Excuse me. Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Thank you very much. Okay. Is there anyone in the chamber wishing to be heard on this matter? And I have cards here. There's a uh is it a Dne Chadwick? Yes.

In support. Yeah. Thank you. Good evening. I just want to I'm definitely for this project. I've seen so many projects come that, you know, the three-story towering town homes and, you know, the four-story Alamo apartments and whatnot. But this is great. whenever I can see a single family home uh detached type of uh plan development, I'm all for it. So, this has got my vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, the next card I have is for Heather Moss. Good evening, everyone. My name is Heather Moss. I'm a 15-year resident of Central Seami Valley and I work in the local business community here. I'm here tonight to urge you to save the mature oak trees the developers of the Oak Park South project are seeking to remove for a large highdensity housing project development on the site. These trees are located on the property along rural Oak Road and are among Seami Valley's oldest indigenous residents. I speak for all the trees with particular attention to the trees I believe are identified as T41 and T1. These trees are mature, healthy, and majestic. Based on their size and stature, they are clearly antique. I would estimate them to be at least 100 to 300 years old. The developer retained arborist Richard Campbell to prepare an oak tree report. Much of the report focuses on tree replacement costs, but trees that have stood for centuries truly cannot be replaced. When evaluating trees of this magnitude, the most important issues are their age, health, and historical significance. His report omits several critical issues, including the trees ages and potential potential historic protections. No estimated ages or age ranges are provided. These omissions are significant as mature oak trees qualify for protections under Seami Valley's tree preservation ordinance. Mr. Campbell states the trees are within the footprint of the proposed building and construction and scheduled for removal, but does not address whether their age,

stature, or historical significant warrant further evaluation and protection. A responsible, unbiased arborist would recognize that mature oak trees may qualify for protection under the city's ordinance. Their age is directly relevant to any fair and object objective preservation analysis. Sadly, T41 and its neighboring trees are being slated for removal for this overcrowded proposed housing development. It appears the trees may not have previously received protected status due to oversight or lack of identification. However, prior designation is not required for protection under Seami Valley's mature tree preservation ordinance and they remain entitled to full review under that law. These majestic trees should be incorporated into the project design, not destroyed. The developers knowingly purchased the property containing the mature oak trees along a rural roadway approp appropriately named Oak Road named for the oak trees that historically define the area. What appears to be tree T41 serves as the welcoming cornerstone of the property. Any effort to bypass proper preservation review should be halted. Available information suggests T41 has stood for well over a century and remains a significant feature of the local landscape. Its historic and environmental value warrants careful review before any irreversible action is taken. T41 could very well be one of the oldest living members of our community. Please take a stand and help preserve these living landmarks. Seami Valley's Tree Ordinance Chapter 938 recognizes that trees, especially mature, healthy trees, foster an image of beauty, tranquility, and stability throughout our community. These many benefits should be preserved for future generations.

Local ordinances require careful review before significant natural resources can be removed or altered. These trees along with their neighbor their nearby companions reflects those values. Their removal is not justified and any development should incorporate and preserve them within the project design. The trees on Oak Road South property warrant full review and protection under the applicable preservation provisions. Tonight, I wear this tree necklace in solidarity with these historic oak trees. Please help the trees remain remain standing in their indigenous home on Oak Road. I respectfully urge the planning commission to preserve and protect our community's living links to Seami Valley's past and deny this project. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

The next uh speaker card that I have and the last one is from James McGillis. Chair Kennedy, members of the planning commission staff, I'm James McGillis, resident here in Semi Valley on April 14th, 2026. I attended a meeting of neighborhood council number two and received a printed package regarding the proposed Oak Road South project. The project included 60 single family homes placed 7 feet apart with 10 ft deep backyards and driveways 10 feet long. Can't park a car there. This highdensity project stretches both the law and our imaginations. But amazingly, it qualifies as a near miss to the city's zoning laws and must therefore be approved. Ironically, when the city conducted a comprehensive traffic study for the project, it included a map of 60 town homes clustered in a total of 14 buildings. That map clearly shows the canopies of two large valley oaks. The trunk of T1 is 68 inches in diameter and estimated by its caretaker to be 500 years old. The trunk of T41 is 62 in in diameter and may be 200 years old. It is a tree that is depicted on my t-shirt tonight. A tree report was prepared for the project. The overall site currently has 53 mature trees, including six valley oak trees. Which lucky valley oak tree is going to allow be allowed to survive? And it's not delineated in tonight's presentation as to which one it may be. Based on the current conceptual landscape plan, we don't know which tree will be spared. Quoting from the tree report, while several Valley Oak individuals were observed, they did not comprise the minimum relative cover requirements to meet the vegetation community membership rules. I didn't know there were such a thing which are over 30% when coastl live oaks are present. In other words, these valley oaks did not plan

and propagate in sufficient numbers to meet the artificial human designation as a protected habitat. So large families of trees are protected, but small families are given only a cash value. Although this relicked forest is an irreplaceable asset to both the natural environment and to the city of Seami Valley, the tree report discounts them to 20% total impact value of just over $250,000. If you go to the website for Angel City Lumber, a custom lumber mill in Los Angeles specializing in slabs cut from Southern California tree specimens, you will see that a single 8-ft pre-lab of a valley oak is valued at $5,000. To my knowledge, there is no lumber mill in the United States capable of cutting a 68 inch slab, largely because there are no unprotected trees of that size. According to the current California state law, the project qualifies for a near miss in Simui Valley's general plan amendment and zone change requirements. That means the project cannot be challenged for not meeting every term of the current zoning laws. Like a near miss in the game of horseshoes, the project scores enough points to win legal approval. The city's maturity tree preservation regulations require the applicant to replace and remove the removed trees with specimens of a certain size planted on the site valued up to the appraised value of the trees being removed or contribute to the tree fund. Deep in the tree report in small print is verbiage regarding four of the six valley oaks which says quote may qualify as historic tree status. In 2006, Semi Valley allowed the destruction of its then designated heritage oak. It was an old deteriorating tree, so it was replaced with residential development. Tree T1 and T41 have stood the test of time with some careful pruning and drip line protection. They could live for many years to come. So, which is it? Are these trees to be cut for firewood, or are you going to stand against the developer's greed? And my suggest my suggestion is that the development plan

be denied. The developer should protect at least T1 and T41. The plan for the development should revert to the 60 from 60 single family homes to the proposed formerly proposed during the traffic study 60 town homes as originally prepared. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, are there any comments from staff regarding statements made during the public hearing? Just a few.

Just a few. Yes. Um, I'd like to respond first to some questions about the sales price, AMI, and the arena numbers uh that the applicant mentioned. Sorry, bear with me. So, the the very low income houses are to be for 30% to 50% area medium income for very low that's that's what very low income means. Uh those income levels are $31,450 for a single person household and $59,900 for a twoperson household. Uh the sales price will be approximately $130,000 for each of those affordable units. Um in terms of the arena allocations, the very low reena allocation that the city has is 375 units for this cycle. uh with including these units um we would still have 283 unmet um very low-inccome units um if this project were to be approved uh with regard to the near miss provision uh that is actually SQA law not um city development code um I don't know if our we have our SQA consultants here tonight if they want to elaborate on Hi, good evening. My name is Jennifer Marks. I'm with Somus. I'm the city's environmental consultant. Uh we did prepare the initial study based on u several of the technical studies that were prepared and then we third party reviewed the majority of them from uh the applicants team. And as far as the near miss that we're talking about, the project does qualify for a um statutory

exemption according to Assembly Bill 130 except for one item which uh there was a Senate bill 131 that was released in 2025 that allows you to uh still qualify for a statutory exemption with the urban infill housing development. If you have one item that does not quite hit the qualifications that are identified, it's a list of about 20 different topics and one of those topics is compliance with the general plan and zoning. And so that is the one near miss that was identified. Um otherwise it does fall within all of the requirements of the statutory exemption.

I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Um, and then the mention of the project in the traffic report. The original traffic report was actually for 73 attached units, which was prior to the fire department letting the applicant know that they could only construct 60 units because of the single means of in and out. Um, and that is what prompted the applicant to redesign their project. So that was actually 73 attached units on that site plan, not 60. Um, now I'm going to come to the trees. So, I'm going to jump around a bit, so just bear with me. I'm going to answer the first question about the tree that was not removed, not being shown. Uh, so if you look at the tree removal map attached to the tree report, it's actually T-51 back here. Um, that's not being removed. Um, the ones circled in red are being removed. Then let me just jump to the tree ordinary.

Wait, could you go back a little? But D-51 was also the one in the worst condition, wasn't it? Yes, but it's not in the it's not on the um it's not in the development footprint, so it's being it's not being removed. Yeah. And the one in the lower right corner there, this this one? Yeah. No, further. Yeah, right there. That's not an oak tree. That's a protected tree. Okay, thank you. I couldn't fit all 52 circles on this.

Uh, with regard to the 30% rule that is in the biological assessment, um, you do need a number to determine what how many oak trees constitutes an oak woodland and that's where the 30% threshold comes from. I'm just trying to tick all these things off. in terms of the tree ordinance. So the this is the this is a portion of the tree ordinance. The age of the tree is actually not um in the ordinance mostly because we I did check this with our arborist and what he said was it's very hard to determine the age of a tree without actually boring into the tree. Um he did say this the oak tree the biggest oak tree is probably between 150 and 300 years old. Uh so that is one thing to consider. Uh the tree valuation as you can see here is based on the health of the tree, the aesthetic quality of the tree um damage of the tree and the replacement value of the tree is based on the guide for establishing values and of trees and other plans prepared by the council of tree landscape appraisers. That is what is used for every single project. Uh, and this as a summary, this was the the health and aesthetics of the oak trees to be removed. So, they're between uh C++ and D. And I'm sorry, I'm just jumping between slides. So in terms of the tree being historic, there are a couple of things that come into play with this. Um one is the tree

report obviously and the other one is actually the cultural resources report. Um if a tree the tree itself is not listed by the venture county cultural heritage board. However, we do have the leeway to um refer a tree or any structure on a site to the Venture County Heritage Board for listing. There are certain criteria um for example a particular historic, cultural, scenic or aesthetic significance of the city or my favorite uh which is imbued with traditional or legendary law. Um I found that to be quite catchy. Um however the cultural report itself for this site does not identify any cultural remains no tribal remains. We did do tribal consultation with 15 tribes uh over 3 months and nothing was identified um on the site as such we don't really we have no basis for referring these trees to the cultural heritage board. um historic tree status. Uh just to clarify, the NC meeting package is a pad down package. So it doesn't have the complete um information that's in the staff report. Um that is why some of that the tree report for example was not included. Uh so just to clarify as we determined the project does meet the tree the city's tree ordinance. aesthetics. I believe somebody commented about the density. So we do we have this slide here which is basically the density of the subject site and then the density of the surrounding projects on the site. So you can see to the north is the construction

the site that's under construction right now which is 19.39 acres versus 13.4 for the project site. Uh to the east the crest mobile homes are 10.42 units per acre. The semi county semiount mobile homes are 10.99 units per acre. The Sage Creek apartments are 23.97 units per acre and the Regency apartments are 35.38 units per acre. So just to clarify um the the density context for the site and Aron can you leave it on that slide there? Also we can clarify that the the little triangle parcel to the south of the channel is not part of the density allowance.

Correct. Yes.

Tonight's item is a two lot subdivision. So we're creating two new lots. One north of the channel and south of the channel. The one on the north side is for condominium purposes. So technically it's a condominium map. So it's one lot. Lot two is was not intended to be part of the this development. The applicant is requesting it to be remain vacant and developed later. There was a question about is it going to be maintained that we could discuss that part of it, but it's really a different lot, not part of the plan development boundary per se, but that could be a discussion. And also, I don't know if um that might be on Narn's list already, but there was a question about the utility undergrounding and there was um there's one little section N could probably point out where the poles will remain near the um flood channel to hop over the channel and to serve the uh properties to the south.

But the main the bulk of the lot will be undergrounded. Um, and that's all the responses that I have. Thank you.

Yeah, that kind of answers the questions that I had uh on that as well. And I think uh u the majority of Mr. McGillis's questions as well. Um, at this time, would the applicant like to respond to any of the comments regarding statements made during the uh public hearing? Seeing none, thank you. If there are no further questions, we will close the public testimony portion of the hearing. Are there any additional comments or questions from members of the planning commission at this time? You want to go first?

You know what? I'm gonna go first. I don't want to go first, but I'm going to go first. Um, there's a lot of things I like about this project. One, I I um I think that the density should be the same as the um projects around it. That's that's very logical. Um, I like the size of the project, the scale of the project. Um, I like the design of the project. I like the thought behind the project, but I hate taking out oak trees. I really really hate taking out oak trees and I hate taking out heritage oak trees. This this this is disgusting. Um, I can understand taking out the small oak trees, but taking out a tree like T1 or T41 or even T10 just I find it disgusting. Um, I don't think that should happen. But, you know, um, if if the developer could could, you know, find a way to, you know, use that as the centerpiece of this project, I would be like, "This is fantastic. This is wonderful." you know, um, and this is going to be a showstopper, but I, you know, to me, this this is I if if if we're not going to save these trees, then why do we even have a tree ordinance? What's the purpose? Then we might as well just rip it up because I don't see the purpose of it

trying to say the guardrails aren't inadequate. There there are no guardrails. I mean, like, what's the purpose? I just it's it's a meaningless piece of paper. That's what I'm saying. I I agree with you, Commissioner Chrisman.

On on that note, I I I agree with you, uh, Commissioner Rice, and I I have a couple of questions. Um it says in the supplemental that there's good forestry practices when it comes to standard for granting or disapproving tree removal permits. So with the tree being graded C plus how do we where where the the do the standards bottom and in agreeing to to remove a tree if that's my that's my first question. Um, and then my second question is that it said that in the initial forest report to our tree report, it says that they might be historic trees. Mr. McGillis mentioned that as well. And then in the additional addendum, it said that they're not unless there is trying to find it with my notes. There is a city a list of historic trees and the status of it. If there's is there such a document within Ci. Sorry, could I ask for clarification on your first question? Where do you see the

It's uh on the second page of the mature tree preservation ordinance from our municipal code. It's 938080 and it's number four, good forestry practices. What does that entail? And you said it's in the supplemental. Yes. Yes, it's it's after the uh uh emails from Mr. McGillis. Oh, okay. That the attachments.

It's going to be on the second page. Third page, I'm sorry. um uh 938080 standard for granting or disapproving tree removal permits and then it's going to be item number four good forestry practices. If you can just elaborate on that when a tree gets C plus or C minus is that considered bad forestry practice or it doesn't at all qualify for that category. Uh, from what I'm reading here, it's more like you can't um have if if the site can only hold about 20 trees and the trees that that you can't put like more of them for mitigation value. That's that's how I'm reading. I mean, good forestry practices covers I'm I'm not a arborist, but it does in my experience it covers a lot of different things. It covers anything from how you trim trees. Uh, for example, if you're trimming mature trees, it should be done under arber supervision. It also covers how you plant trees on a site that they should have adequate irrigation uh spacing um and things like that. So it really covers a broad spectrum of uh issues.

Thank you. So there's nothing in our tree ordinance that would say like oh if the tree gets a certain grade it becomes a protected tree.

So we have let me share this slide. So these are the guidelines for trees associated with urban development. Um the initial project layout design grading shall recognize the desiraability of preserving protected trees with appropriate modification adjustments to accommodate preservation and maintain maintenance by locating the best candidates in areas where preservation is feasible. It basically lays out a road map for a developer to design their project accordingly. However, at the same time, it says it may not be practical to preserve all healthy trees. Um, and therefore, the city and the developer shall be willing to compromise the goal of complete tree preservation. So, really, when the project design is put forth forth to us, we do tell we do let applicants know like if if you're removing trees like this, it's not going to be popular. It's not going to be something that the planning commission is going to like. It's probably not going to be something that the city council can like. It's really up to you to argue your case. In this case, the argument is that the financial requirements for them to create this detached project requires them to remove the trees. So, it's we staff kind of walks the fine line between telling pe telling applicants this is what in the ideal world the city and we would like in your project but then the applicant has other priorities as well. So what we present to the planning commission uh the planning commission has the ability to say this doesn't to like sorry let me back up a bit staff's recommendation is based on the project meeting the regulatory requirements

the technical requirements. Yeah the technical requirements planning commission is the body or the city council that has the power to say that's not enough we want you to do more. So, does that answer your question? Yes. Thank you. I'm sorry. I forgot. I agree with Commissioner Rice and everything he said. I'm sorry. I forgot your second second question. Um, was that I feel like it tied to the first one and I feel like you answered both. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions?

I've got one question maybe for our attorney. uh they are applying for one incentive and four waiverss uh based upon the plans that they've uh put forward. If if we deny this project, can can't they just go legally to Sacramento and say AB 130 allows us to do these things? Mr. Commissioner or Mr. chairman, members of the commission. So the important thing to remember here is that there's a legislative decision that has to be made by the city council which is a general plan amendment which means that ordinarily if this were if they met all the objective development standards that were in place for this type of development then the answer to your question would be not necessarily Sacramento but to somebody uh in court. Uh but this is a recommendation from this planning commission to the city council to make certain legislative decisions to amend the general plan to allow this type of development to move forward. And under those circumstances, because the housing development as proposed does not meet the objective standards in the general plan and the zoning, uh that option is not available to to the developer, which in anticipation of your follow-up question means that yes, the planning commission could continue the matter, for example, and ask the developer to come back with a an alternate proposal that might preserve at least one or two of the trees. uh or the planning commission could make a vote however it chooses uh to the planning or to the city council.

Um that being said, and I'm just throwing this out there, um the average rating for a for an oak is a C. So, um and T10, as much as I would want to preserve T10 as well, is a D. So that would leave T1 and T42 or excuse me, T41, my bad. Um, who are the biggest trees out there. So, and like Mr. McGillis said, I I believe that T1 is probably the reason why the street has its name. Um, and I don't know. I don't know if that makes the project even viable, but but maybe maybe if we had an arborist to I don't know if if the maybe the developer would want to continue this maybe. I don't know. Just to throw that idea out there.

Was there maybe was there ever I guess this is a question for the developer, but you if if you allow this question, you will have to reopen the public hearing. Uh was there ever consideration from the developer to incorporate the trees? Okay, let's go back to the developer and reopen. Yeah, as I mentioned, the first proposal did preserve I can't remember exactly which trees, but they did preserve a couple of the trees. Um, but I'd defer to the applicant to respond to that question in more detail.

Would the applicant like to respond to that? Thank you. Could Could we bring up the uh the map of the development with the tree overlay?

Uh let me know. Are you ready? Yeah. We're going to uh re reopen this uh uh portion uh for the applicant to respond for public testimony. Thank you. Um so, so first I want to make sure we we understand what staff said that we are in compliance with the tree ordinance. Is that correct? Correct.

Okay. There's some some items that uh also were brought up. Um, we have a condition to invest or or contribute $533,000 uh for the trees being removed. It's over half a million dollars. It's a lot of money. Um, the project to the north of us, very similar situation. They actually had a much different general plan amendment zone change. They had commercial and residential. It was reszoned to high density. It had a tree very similar to ours. it was approved and removed. Just to be clear, there is no list at the city for a tree, no protected list. They do rely on the Ventara County uh list. There was no nexus for recommendation as staff said. Um the city reviewed our arburish report. We provided addendums. The city had a third-party arborist report reviewing ours and and complied I'm sorry and and and confirmed the findings. So we had two arborists including the cities to review. There was a mention about uh the first site plan uh with the um I think it's T1 and T41. Um that was over four years ago. A lot has happened in four years. I wish I was talking to you just say 12 months after we submit our application. It really should have been that way. We were given several different detours. It was something that was very frustrating with us and part of that was the economy changed. The number of units changed. The uh site constraints changed. Our initial project did not have any affordable units. We had to add three affordable units. So we started with 73

town homes. We went down to 60 units. We were rejected by that and we had to add a density bonus because of it. So we lost three more units. The only reason that those trees were were going to be reserved was allowing for that project. Unfortunately, that's not possible. If that project was possible with the fire department, then we probably would have been building by now. But unfortunately, it's not possible. There is no way to save those trees and do this project. So, we're weighing now saving trees. We're finding housing for people in this housing crisis. We've got 60 homes, three of which will be uh designated very low affordable, $130,000. It's really low. I mean, think about that person who's trying to, you know, get into the home ownership, trying trying to have shelter, and instead of that, we're going to save a tree. Now, keep in mind, we're replacing the tree with minimum, I think, 36 inch box trees. They could be bigger, and if we can't fit them on site because they just don't either fit physically, then we pay the $533,000. So, in in in my opinion, in staff's opinion, in our arbor's opinion, I think that homeowner's opinion, this plan is the project you should approve.

Thank you. briefly. I think um it does bear repeating from staff um that there is compliance and review with the city's um mature tree regulations. I understand Commissioner Rice's position, which is if they don't protect these trees, then then maybe the regulations need to be changed. But the regulations as implemented by staff have been put in place and evaluated for purposes of this project to the extent that the city is taking a position of saying that these regulations are going to um be implemented in a different way or uh would be put in place and to preclude construction of the project. that could be a density bonus waiver in and of itself. Um, in which the city would then be making specific density bonus findings in order to deny a waiver request. So, because staff's position on this has been project complies, there's a condition of approval, there will be a tree re removal permit consistent with with the city's code, there's no waiver request pending before you because there's a need for one. Um but to the extent that the position of the commission is, hey, we think that that we want to either kick this project out further or um overrule staff on that determination, then I think that would be kind of the the direction that the applicant would go and then it would come back likely to the commission for purposes of or working with staff for purposes of making those findings to determine whether there is a public health and safety impact that could be justifiable to save the trees. Thank you.

Any further questions,

Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, if I may, just for clarification, staff has made a recommendation that is a threshold recommendation that the project meets the regulatory requirements. And I reemphasize my observations that I made before, which is part of the application is for a legislative decision being made by the city council, which means there's no legal obligation for the city council to make that legislative decision. So yes, the project meets the bare minimum regulatory requirements with regard to the tree regulations and what have you. That doesn't mean though that this planning commission can't recommend to the city council for something in addition to that uh in order to get that legislative decision made by the city council.

Thank you for that clarification.

Okay, any further questions? Okay. If there are no further questions, we'll close the public testimony and uh it's closed at this time. Uh are there any uh we already asked any further comments from the planning commission members at this time?

I I I like the I like the affordability of the project. This comment time. Yes, please. Yes, I like the affordability of the project, but I really, as Commissioner Rice said, struggle with the tree situation. So, we can maybe discuss that a little more. Commissioner Rice, you said that the tree was rated at a D. That was T. That was T. No, it's T10.

Is a D. But T1 is a C minus and T41 is a C++ and C is an average rating. So for for an oak tree, well I put it in a nutshell, this is a really good project.

No, I agree. But see, here's the thing. I mean, like you get rid of a 300-y old tree. I mean, look, I understand what the applicant's saying, but the point is like you the 300-y old tree, you don't bring back a 300-y old tree. It's just not going to come back. And I I understand. Yeah. I mean, there's there's people want a home. I understand that. But you cannot just bring back a 300-y old tree with a with a 36-inch box tree. That's just not going to or a 48inch box tree for that matter. No. You know, it's just not going to you just don't do that. Or with five 40inch box trees. It's not going to replace it. No. Not in our lifetime. No. I don't I don't Maybe that tree might last another hundred years anyway. in its current condition. Yeah.

Environment. Uh I think what we're balancing here is are we going to bring some affordable housing here with a with a good project and a good place and sacrifice a few trees. That that that looks like the direction we're headed under the current guidance that we have. Um uh until they change that that coverage guidance uh you know with the amount of oak trees and uh how they live together. So, um, well, I I I can't vote for this the way it is. There's just no way. I'm sorry. So, all right. Any other comments?

We We could be also possibly looking in um I'm playing devil's advocate in a worse project that might come before us. Always. Yeah. Always or a better. I mean, like, who knows? It's possible. And I'm not saying by any means that it's a bad project. It's just that the component of the trees being removed is well other than the trees that checks all the boxes for me, right? That's the only that's the only part that uh is the difficult part of this.

I mean, I do have a a little bit of a concern with the windows uh on the side of the buildings with the seven feet apart uh because there's a lot of windows. But that's uh determination of the buyers at the time. Yes.

Right. I won't tell you what my firemen guys say about that, but um remember that whatever we come to conclusions tonight gets pushed up one level. And um maybe it's just a matter of us expressing our uh opinions and letting them know how we how we feel. I concur.

It's a It's a great project except two trees. Okay, it sounds like we're uh we're done discussing this. Uh so uh may I please have a reading of the resolution at this time? Resolution number SVPC072026, a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Seami Valley recommending to the city council approval of a general plan amendment GPA 2024 00001 zone change ZS 2024003 plan development permit PDS 2024 4 00005 and tenative map TT 2024 00004 to change the general plan land use from moderate density and medium density residential to high density residential. change the zoning designation from residential moderate density ROD and residential medium density RM to residential high density RH to construct a 60-unit twostory multif family residential condominium development with an affordable housing agreement located at 1761 1801 and 1807 Oak Road and a determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

Thank you. The chair will now entertain a motion.

Chair uh Chairman Kennedy before maybe before a motion is made. Um I just want to reiterate some of the procedures here. If if you choose to recommend approval, that's one option. If you um want to request a continuence or something tangible for the for staff or the applicant to look at, we could reach out to the applicant to see if they concur or you can make that motion on your own. Um to clarify, if you do a motion for denial, um that would require the applicant to appeal to the city council because it's a legislative action. So, we actually have to file an appeal to city council. And we would also come back um with a resolution um with the denial recommendate denying the project with adequate findings. So I'm hearing some of these potential findings regarding the tree aesthetics and um we will come back with a final resolution on the denial about everybody get that. All right. At this time, I'll entertain entertain a motion.

I I would like to um I I would like to move I I don't I know this is precreening. I should read it, but I want to have the recommendation for city uh council to keep to work with the developer to keep the trees to approve it, but with that condition. So, I guess I'll I'll move to adopt a resolution recommending that the city council approve GPA 2024001, ZS2024003, and PDS 202400005, and TT 20224004, and a determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act with a condition that the city council works with the or the staff works with the developer to possibly preserve the trees. I don't know if that's good enough,

Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. So, the resolution will stay as it is with a re it added a recommendation as part of the motion to the city council that as part of its consideration for the legislative determinations that it direct either the city manager um or or staff to to work trying to preserve the trees to the extent possible. Correct. Got it. Do I hear a second? Second. All right, let's put it to a vote. The vote passes with Vice Chairperson Rice voting no. microphone back on here.

Yeah, you did. Um, there is no appeal period for the general plan amendment, zone change, planning development permit, or tenative map, and the items will proceed to the city council with the planning commission's recommendation. finding my way here. Okay. Item 12. Yeah. Okay. We're now on item 12, oral communications and reports. Yes. Chair staff.

Sorry. Yes. Chairman Kennedy and members of the commission. Our next scheduled meeting is May 20th, but we expect that to be cancelled and uh after that it'll be June 3. Uh do do uh do the commissioners have anything to report? I do. I want to welcome back Nikki from her maternity leave. Yay.

Uh okay. Uh mobile home rent mediation board. Staff have anything to report? We have no items tonight, right? Boy, this is a tough one. Tree advisory board. Staff have anything to report? No, no additional items tonight on the tree advisory board. I I do have a question since we're on the tree advisory board. Um in the future, can we bring up the um uh tree preservation ordinance or have a presentation if at least a presentation on the tree preservation ordinance? I think that's a great idea. get a better understanding of it. Absolutely. Doesn't have to be next month. I'm just

Absolutely. Um staff is actually looking at um possible code updates to reflect the changing lands the changing landscape of our mature trees and the very high fire hazard zones and uh the uh every so often drought conditions. Fantastic. All right. This concludes the meeting of May 13, 2026. The next scheduled meeting may be May 20th, 2026. Maybe. Wait a second. This meeting is adjourned. I get to use it. And I'm actually going to