Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Like nine, eight. It's not too bad.

Yeah, it's fine.

Yeah, I know. You guys ready? All right. You're good? Okay, the Planning Commission meeting of June 3rd, 2026 will come to order.

All rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The Secretary will call roll.

Commissioner Mann. Present. Commissioner Tolson.

Here.

Commissioner Christman. Here. Vice Chairperson Rice. Here. Chairperson Kennedy.

May I have a motion for approval of the agenda?

I move to approve the agenda as submitted.

I'll second.

Motion was made by Commissioner Tolson with a second by Commissioner Chrisman. Unless there are any objections, the agenda stands approved. Approval of the minutes. May I have a motion for approval of the minutes of May 13th, 2026?

I motion to approve the minutes.

Second.

A motion was made by Commissioner Mann with a second by Commissioner Tolson. Lester, any objections? The minutes are approved. Declaration of Conflict. The Secretary will read the Declaration of Conflict.

If any member of the Planning Commission may have a conflict of interest or any reason why that member must abstain from consideration of any matter on this agenda, he or she should so declare at this time.

Are there any declarations of conflict? Okay, seeing none. Public statements. This is a time allotted for public statements or comments on all items other than the hearing items.

this would be anything other than the lost canyons project so if there's anyone in the chamber wishing to be heard okay correspondence is there any correspondence from the deputy director city planner yes vice chairperson rice members of the planning commissioner we did provide one supplemental staff report for agenda item 11 a1 we received a Couple correspondences, and there were some revisions to the conditions of approval Those have been provided to you on the website and a copy is also placed out in the lobby Okay consent calendar seeing none continued business seeing none new business

This is the time and place set for a public hearing on the consideration of GPA 2024-0003, ZS 2025-0003, SPS 2025-0002, PDS 2025, dash zero zero zero three, TT dash two zero two five dash zero zero zero two, and the environmental impact report addendum and mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Are there any ex parte communications to report? Seeing none, may we have an oral report on this matter by staff?

Yes, good evening, Vice Chairperson Rice, members of the Planning Commission, members of the public. This is tonight's agenda item for the proposed amendment to the Lost Canyons Development Project to relocate some of the approved units from one side of the property to the other and some minor improvements land use map and zoning map changes and some design changes to the specific plan. With our presentation tonight we have Senior Planner Elizabeth Richardson with the presentation.

Good evening. Tonight we are reviewing a modification to the Lost Canyon specific plan development. The project consists of a general plan amendment, zone change, specific plan amendment, a plan development permit, and tentative map to relocate 178 lots approved for the south side of Lost Canyons Drive to the north side and two lots to the southern edge of the project site with access from Ditch Road and Anderson Drive. No new residential lots are proposed. If the City Council approves the modification presented tonight, the builder will return with individual lot plotting and architectural design to the Planning Commission. Noticing was completed 20 days in advance of the June 3rd meeting to comply with state law requiring 20-day notice for projects with a zone change. The Lost Canyons project site is located on the north side of Simi Valley next to the Big Sky subdivision. The site is 1,770 acres and is bounded by Tappo Canyon Road to the west, Copperstone Drive to the east, north and south of Lost Canyons Drive, and north of Ditch Road and Anderson Drive. The site is surrounded by single family homes and open space. This is a view of the project site north of Lost Canyons Drive looking east. And this is a view of the project site north of Lost Canyons Drive looking west. The Whiteface specific plan was first adopted in 1992 for a maximum of 364 units on the site. A park and two golf courses were anticipated for the project, and the two golf courses were constructed and operated on the site. However, both have since closed. In 2011, the Lost Canyon Specific Plan was adopted for 364 single-family residences, remove the golf course on the south side of Lost Canyon's Drive, and allow the golf course on the north side of Lost Canyon's Drive to be a private golf course with an expanded clubhouse and amenities. In 2013, the city council adopted the planned development permit and tentative map to subdivide the 1,770 acre site to create 364 single family residential lots. Parks, golf courses, and infrastructure were also approved. No house plans were approved with this permit, and the phase one final map has been recorded for 184 lots. Site grading and improvements have begun on the site. For the applicant to reach this point in the project, they have had to comply with the EIR mitigation measures. secure permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and obtain a tree removal and relocation permit from the city. In addition, they have also been working with the with the Public Works Division to obtain their grading and site improvement construction permits. In 2020, the Planning Commission approved a cluster development permit for house siding and architecture for 184 single-family residences located in the area north of Lost Canyons Drive. Construction of these homes was approved. Construction of these approved homes did not begin. In September of 2023, the City Council held a general plan prescreening and authorized further processing of a general plan amendment to be considered as part of tonight's request. In July of 2024, the Planning Commission approved a plan development permit and tentative map to relocate 32 lots from the northeast corner of the project site shown here in the red hatch to the area just north of Lost Canyons Drive shown in purple. The applicant requests approval of the following modifications to the approved Lost Canyons development. Removal of the commercial recreation land use and zone in order to remove the golf course portion of the project. Reconfigure the open space residential estate, residential low and medium density land use and zoning to allow the relocation of the 180 approved single family lots located on the south side of Lost Canyons Drive to the north side. 178 lots will be located on the north side and two lots will be placed on the southern edge of the project site one accessible from ditch road and one accessible from anderson drive amendments to the lost canyon specific plan development and design standards and modifications to the tapu canyon road alignment and width are also included The general plan land use map will be updated to reflect the development changes. The area around the golf course will be changed from recreation commercial land use designation to low density residential and medium density residential for the relocation of the 178 homes. The areas south of Lost Canyons Drive where the homes were to be located will be changed to open space plus two areas of low density residential for the two estate lots. The areas shown here in yellow were the location of the 180 lots that were approved and are now being proposed to be moved. And in orange is the area that's proposed to be changed to medium density residential to allow for the relocation of the 178 lots. The zone change will update the city zoning map to correspond with the general plan land use map changes. The former golf course area will be rezoned from commercial recreation to residential low and medium density, and the area south of Lost Canyons Drive will be replaced with open space and residential estate zoning, along with the two estate lots will be rezoned residential low density. As we've discussed, the following specific plan amendments are proposed and in conjunction with the general plan amendment and zone change are necessary to relocate the residential lots. Reduced side yard and rear yard setbacks are requested as part of the specific plan amendment. The side yard setbacks will be reduced from 10 feet minimum for two story structures to five feet. The reduced side yard setbacks will allow the future homes to fill the lots for improved house frontages when viewed from the streets. The amendment also proposes a reduced rear yard setback for one and two story structures. When homes are located adjacent to HOA open space, one story homes can have a five foot setback, rear yard setback, and a two story house can have a 10 foot rear yard setback. The specific plan amendment also includes replacing estate custom and semi-custom home types that are detailed in the approved specific plan with product types A, B, C, and D. And on this map, we have the key with the colors so you can generally see where these product types will be located. This change allows a future builder to present product types that meet their development needs but will not regulate the size of the individual homes. The specific plan design guidelines establish the character of the overall development and provide guidance to maintain the desired design quality. In addition to regulating the common area construction, they also regulate the architectural styles and details of the individual homes. The approved design guidelines have five architectural styles approved. Mission, Spanish Colonial, American Eclectic, Craftsman Bungalow, and Mediterranean. The amendment proposes two new architectural styles, modern farmhouse and coastal contemporary. The modern farmhouse is the evolution of traditional farmhouse style merging traditional design with contemporary design elements. Modern farmhouse architecture maintains the farmhouse shape while modernizing it with clean, minimal elements while utilizing rustic materials in contemporary ways. Homes could feature gabled roofs, natural materials such as wood, stone, or brick siding. Buildings would have large windows and sliding doors and metal, tile, or composition shingle roofs. The coastal contemporary is a modern interpretation of residential coastal architecture, incorporating contemporary design elements while maintaining a connection to the ocean. The style is characterized by its open floor plan, large windows, sleek lines, and a focus on natural light and ventilation. Homes could feature low-pitched roofs, large porches and overhangs, and natural materials like wood, stone, and metal are frequently used, along with light, neutral colors serving as the primary color palette. Roof materials could be metal, tile, or concrete shingle. Other architectural styles may be considered by the developer if the style provides an appropriate design detail and can provide consistency with the proposed style. The architectural style and site plans will be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a future plan development permit modification. The program book guides the overall site layout, landscaping, streetscape, for a cohesive design. The amendment to the program book includes a conceptual site plan and landscaping plan for future recreation amenities, common area landscaping, as well as the entrance gate design. The future common area design and recreation amenities will be reviewed by the planning commission with the plan development permit mod. The master plan development modification revises the project with the relocation of the 180 lots and phase one consists of 184 lots and phase two consisting of 180 lots. The golf course and clubhouse will be removed and the golf cart trails will be repurposed as public recreation trails. Streets inside the subdivision will be private and have on-street guest parking in addition to on-site parking in the driveways. HOA lots are located throughout the development for slope maintenance and landscaping purposes. A new recreation amenity will replace the golf course and clubhouse that was part of the original approved project. At this time, that space has not been designed or programmed. However, it will be reviewed by the planning commission with the future modification to review the single family residential architecture. The tentative map will relocate the 180 lots previously approved on the south side of Lost Canyons Drive. 178 lots will be located on the north of Lost Canyons Drive on the area of the now closed golf course, and two lots will be located at the southern edge of the site with access from Anderson Drive and Ditch Road. The 178 relocated lots will range in size between 6,485 square feet and 24,377 square feet with a minimum lot dimensions ranging between 60 by 100 feet and 90 by 110 feet. Lot 363 will be accessed from Anderson Road and will be 48,250 square feet, while lot 364 will be accessed from Ditch Road and will be 202,332 square feet. Phase two will have a total of 17 lettered lots used as HOA maintained areas for streets, slopes, landscaping, and other amenities. The specific plan amendment includes changes to the Tapo Canyon Road right-of-way. The 2013 specific plan approved right-of-way to be 52 feet wide curb to curb with two lanes of traffic and a center median. Due to geotechnical issues, Tapo Canyon Road between Presidio Drive and Lost Canyons Drive is proposed to be reduced to 45 feet wide with one lane of traffic in each direction. The new design will eliminate the center median and parkways, and the six foot wide bike lanes will be maintained going both north and southbound, along with a five foot wide sidewalk on the east side of Tapo Canyon Road. At the intersection of Lost Canyons Drive and Tapo Canyon Road, the street width is proposed to be 52 feet wide with a northbound left turn lane and a southbound merge lane. Neighborhood Council One considered the project on March 5th, 2026 and the board recommended approval with a vote of 10 to zero and the audience vote was three to zero. An environmental impact report was previously certified in 2011. The original project will be modified and an addendum to the EIR was prepared to confirm that there are no new significant impacts and there are no substantial increases in the severity of any previously identified environmental impacts. The associated impacts of the modified project were determined to be the same or less than described in the previously adopted EIR and our CEQA consultant is here to answer any questions. A supplemental staff report was prepared with revised conditions. Since publishing, it was found that the Public Works maintenance conditions were incorrectly numbered to coincide with the resolution. The added maintenance conditions should be numbered B33, 34, 35, and 36. And in addition, the Public Works traffic conditions were further modified to add that landscaping in the public right-of-way is to be maintained by the HOA. And staff recommends the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending the city council approve general plan amendment, zone change, specific plan amendment, plan development permit, and tentative map. And this concludes staff's presentation and we are available for questions.

Does any commissioner have a question of staff?

You go ahead.

Commissioner Tolson.

I already asked these questions, but I just want to start with, can we go back to the slide with an open space? Just because that was one of the questions in the supplemental and can you just confirm if we're going to be losing any open space in this amendment or we're going to be actually gaining open space? I think it's this one.

So with this amendment, more open space will be part of this project.

And I think I asked you in one of my questions, and I think Director Gibson answered that. It was like around 80%, if I'm not mistaken.

So the approved project was 43% open space, and the proposed project is 89% open space.

Thank you. Commissioner Tolson.

We've got two different lots on the south, very south side, lot number 363 and 364. Is there a way to know how many individual houses would be on those two lots?

So those two lots are zoned residential low. With this approval, they would be allowed one single family residences, and then they could add ADUs to the property if they wanted to.

So one residential per lot? Correct. Thank you.

I have more questions. We can go back and forth. So the original traffic study is pretty outdated, I mean, in my opinion, and I'm not the expert. So if this amendment were to be proposed today, Thank you. You knew that was coming. If this amendment would be to propose today as a brand new project rather than a modification, what would the staff conclude?

I would conclude that there are no additional impacts as a result of this modification. So the trips generated are consistent with the previously conducted study. And in fact, the background traffic has actually decreased since the first study had been conducted. So there are fewer trips on the existing network than exist now. So the overall, even if there was going to be an intensification of use, the overall complete or total number of trips on either Lost Canyons or Tapo Canyon Road would be the same?

Thank you, I have one more maybe related to that. So with the recent fires, and I know maybe that's like a fire and emergency police related question, how would evacuation work with the roads being not as wide as originally proposed?

Sure, so originally with the median, we would actually have the same amount of capacity that we do now. It would just not be separated. So we would only have one lane in each direction with the original configuration and the raised median being unavailable for any travel. A two-lane roadway actually has the capacity to carry anywhere between 15,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day. That's in total, so we anticipate that there are going to be some reductions. So at night, obviously, it's not carrying the full amount of trips. But a single lane can carry about 1,700 vehicles per hour. So even if you were to assume that every single home in the Las Cañas development had three vehicles that all needed to evacuate at the same time, would still be a sufficient amount of capacity to cover the 1092 vehicles in an hour's time so the entire neighborhood could be evacuated with the capacity that is available on the roadway thank you so much that's it for now commissioner no mr man not now okay

All right, we will open the public testimony portion of the hearing. Would the applicant like to present the project? Mr. Nelson?

OK.

Mine is success. Thank you, commissioners. My name is Rick Nelson and I'm with Newport Pacific Land Company. Thank you for the opportunity tonight to present our request to relocate these lots that have been described by staff from the south side of Lost Canyons Drive. Can you hear me okay? From the south side of Lost Canyons Drive to the north side of Lost Canyons Drive. I will try not to be too repetitive in my presentation. So here we go. A little bit about the project history. As staff said, the Lost Canyon project was approved in 2013 for 364 single-family homes in multiple phases in conjunction with an 18-hole golf course and clubhouse that was in operation at that time. The development plan has residential development in both Dry Canyon, Tapo Canyon South, Tapo Canyon North, in addition to around a portion of the former golf course. The final map for the phase one portion of the project, the club core in the North Tapo Canyon, was approved and recorded in June 2022 for 184 lots. And the clubhouse and the 18-hole golf course terminated operations in 2016 due to lack of demand to support the operations. As staff showed you on their map, this was the original layout of the project. It was in five phases. Great. My pointer failed. Can you see that? Well, I guess I don't have to verbally describe it. So Dry Canyon is shown here in the yellow color to the left. Somebody's got a pointer for me. Very good. And it works. To the right, that darker orangish color is Tapo Canyon South. And then Tapo Canyon North was the two purple colors you see there up in the northeast corner in Long Lost Canyons Drive. And the village core is the brown color you see. And the green color was the 18-hole golf course. Commission may remember in July 24th, 2024, we requested permission to relocate the 32 lots at the northeast corner of the project. And those lots in the cross-tatched area were located from the northeast corner down to the purple area you see along Lost Canyons Drive. At that time, there was no zoning change need because there was consistent land use. However, as part of that tentative map, the 32 lots that were in the northeast corner were eliminated and just two large parcels were allowed to be there to eliminate any future development in that portion of the project. And as staff said, we met with the neighborhood council in March, and we received an announcement of approval on the project to relocate the 178 lots from Dry Canyon and Tapo Canyons to the north side of Lost Canyons Drive. As you can see, if you've driven by the site, the grading work is underway and NPLC is in contract with Toll Brothers to actually construct the homes and do the site improvements. As many of you are probably aware, Toll Brothers is a nationally recognized company that builds quality developments and quality homes. This picture you're looking at is a street scene from Porter Ranch that some of you may be familiar with. But I think you would agree that their architecture is very nice and their floor plans are even more incredible than their architecture. So tonight, we're before the Planning Commission to request approval to relocate the 178 lots from Dry Canyon and Tapo Canyons to the former golf course. And that will be in the light green area that you see in Dry Canyon to the left and Tapo Canyon to the right. All those light green areas will no longer have residential development allowed there. It'll be an open space. And that's what's creating this additional open space that staff mentioned. There will be two lots on the south side of the property, one off of Anderson Road and Dry Canyon and one off of Ditch Road for Tapo Canyon South. And the darker green area is where the 178 lots are proposed to be relocated. So this is a blow-up and luster plan of the project. In the center portion, the blue area, that is the lake feature that's currently out on the site. It's actually a little bit further to the east, but we're relocating it to be a more prominent feature of the site as you drive in. And then up above it is the clubhouse that staff mentioned. The main entry is right there and to the east is the easterly entry. There's one EVA farther to the west that Sean's pointing to that's a write-in only. This map also shows a community park trail system that we're proposing. That's that orangish color that you see north of the project. And the community will be able to access those trails from two different points on the project. One there that Sean's pointing to and one up further north. We're also proposing to build a public trailhead off of Bennett Road so the public can also have access to these community trails that's shown in that dark green color. That'd be the Trail head and then they can have the same access the residents have to this trail system, which is on the former golf course In addition to that on the intersection of Tapo Canyon Drive and lost canyons Drive. We're going to be dedicating property to the park districts for a trail head that they can have in order to access the trails further to the east and And this is a blow-up of what the project will look like. As you can see, there's no development in Tapple Canyon South anymore, with the exception of the one lot off the south. And there's no development in Dry Canyon anymore, with the exception of that one lot off of Anderson Drive. What this also shows is a trail through Dry Canyon, which used to be where the residential development was going to be. Previous specific plan had that trail further to the east and it was traversing some very difficult terrain Which would not be easy to construct a trail and so as a because we aren't going to be developing down there anymore we offered to the park districts this new trail location and they can use to their benefit to They can use the existing car trails that are there and so it won't be nearly as expensive for them to improve it as And they were very excited about that. In fact, they said that's where they originally wanted the trail, but unfortunately, it wasn't able to be accommodated as a result of residential development. So to accomplish this transfer, staff has said we need to amend the Whiteface Pacific plan, design guidelines, and general plan to allow the residential development on portions of the former golf course. Former golf course was its own recreational commercial, I believe. And so now it's gonna be proposed to be zoned for a residential medium. We need to modify the master PD to accommodate the lot transfer, rezone dry and Tapo Canyon residential areas to open space, amend the tentative map to transfer the 178 lots to the north side of Lost Canyons Drive. And there is no change to the approved number of units in this project. We're still going to be having only 364 homes as was originally approved 10, 15 years ago. The project benefits. It eliminates 235 acres of disturbance in Dry Canyon and Tapo Canyon, where housing was previously approved. As I mentioned, the total unit count remains the same. It creates additional community and public trails and trailheads, both for the community trails and the one off Bennett Road and for also the park district. It's more of a sustainable plan with efficient uses of public resources, police, fires, water, et cetera. I think the previous plan had approximately four miles of roads, maybe a little more. This current plan being more centralized is probably down to two miles of roads, if not less. As you can see, it's a lot more efficient for sewer, water, and those other infrastructure needs for the development. It's a more efficient, economically feasible plan that will provide needed housing. It eliminates housing in environmental-sensitive areas. It provides for completion of Lost Canyons Drive and Tapple Canyon Road widening and improvements. I want to say one thing that staff didn't mention, but as part of the improvement of Tapple Canyon Road, there will be a signalized intersection at Lost Canyons Drive and Tapple Canyon Road, and if you've ever driven that, It'd be a nice thing to have some of that traffic slow down when you're trying to make those turns so there will be a new signalized intersection there So in conclusion we want to amend the white space white face specific plan design guidelines and general plan modified tentative map and plan development permit relocate 178 lots to a century located area north lost canyons Drive There's no change in the approved unit count or density We're reducing disturbances to environmentally sensitive areas, and it's a more efficient and sustainable plan. So that concludes my presentation, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that the commissioners may have.

Thank you, yeah, thank you. You said you're gonna have, instead of five phases, you're gonna have two, that's correct? So if everything is ideal, how long are those phases gonna be? Or if everything is a disaster, how long are those phases gonna last? Because I think you're mentioning that the addition to the TAPO is gonna start in phase two, is that correct?

Correct. Are you asking how long the development will take? Yeah.

Ideally, and the worst and the best case scenario.

Well, I don't like to look at the worst, but I think a reasonable case.

I live in one of the worst, so I would like to know that.

Well, I mean, obviously, it's market-driven, but as far as the physical improvements are concerned, They've probably got nine months of site grading work to be done out there. And then after the site grading work is done, they've got to put all the site improvements in. So there's going to be a new reservoir being built here. I might mention that reservoir has been sized to accommodate the needed fire flows for the project pursuant to the city's Water Works District 8 requirements and also the Ventura County Fire Department. They've got to put a new pump station in addition to all roads and utilities. They have probably got another nine to 12 months of work there. Now they will, they being told, will likely try to start some of the homes earlier, particularly the model homes, and then based upon their sales pace, I'm sure we'll build it out as quickly as they possibly can. My guess is for the first phase, it's probably, you know, around three years. The second phase, we still have to complete the design of the site improvements, Tapple Canyon Roads, one of them in Lost Canyons Drive, but also N-TRACT, we have to complete those. We've probably got another, you know, nine months to 12 months of design to do. And then after that design is done, work could start on phase two. And it would probably be a similar scenario that I described on phase one for phase two as far as the build-out is concerned.

Thank you.

Okay, did you need Mr. Nelson to come up, or do you want to save him for later?

Me being Mr. Nelson, I'm here.

I'm sorry, Mr. Boyd. I'm sorry, I'm holding this.

I don't think so, Jim.

Only if you need him.

Okay. Only if I stuck my foot in my mouth.

Fair enough. Thank you, sir. Okay. All right. Is there anyone in the chamber wishing to be heard on the matter? I do have just a few cards. Okay, Marie Fisher Bower, followed by Laura Young. The way this works is you have three minutes, and they're little lights. They'll be green. When it gets to yellow, you have 30 seconds, okay? So then you know you can kind of start to wrap it up.

Whoever speaks next may want to lower this here.

Hi. This sounds great, but as a resident of Simi Valley, when the Big Sky project was built, I used to hike on top of the ridges there. And for years afterwards, during the project that was being built and afterwards, bringing trash bags with me to pick up the trash that was left behind or blown by the wind. So I would appreciate the fact that if something like this is being built, that care would be taken to not have the same thing happen again. And it seems to me that you guys have changed the zoning really easily from a portion that was supposed to be built to an open space. So it looks great. Right now we have more open space compared to the project before. But what prevents the board here or another company from coming in taking even more space in that green zone and changing the zoning again to build more homes. How many more homes do we need in Simi Valley? And at what point is it enough? And when we say that there's not going to be an impact on traffic, there's only two lanes, two places where people can exit from there. It's either through the Erringer Road or Tapo Canyon. So it will bring more traffic than usual, not counting the emergencies. Okay, maybe during an emergency, the people can move around, but it will increase the traffic in those areas. And lastly, as a lover of nature, when I moved to Simi Valley, and we bought our home, we used to have deer on our front yard. The deer disappeared when Big Sky was built. And as this development is constructed, more and more of nature of all the animals will go away. So I'm questioning, why do we build the wildlife corridors if we're not going to have any wildlife because we build so many homes? around us, so there are already some tracks in Simi Valley where some of the homes have been built where the houses are not selling. Interest rates for mortgages are really high, so things to consider also when we're adding additional volume to Simi Valley in terms of use. So that was my point, thank you.

Thank you. All right, Lori Young followed by Iman Jaffrey. Laura Young. And then Iman Jaffrey.

Hi. And looking at this project, I mean, it looks beautiful. And then adding that open space obviously is an absolute plus. But she had mentioned the wildlife. I come from, I moved here four years ago from the West San Fernando Valley. to come and into this, I would like to say, quaint town that I really love so much and To see how much is being built and how fast it's developing makes me question what's going to happen and where does it stop. I live in horse community where we're going to be, if we continue this, all of my neighbors are not going to have places to ride or have open space for them to run. That's my question. I feel like it's just moving so fast, the development of all these homes. And where does it end? When do you say enough is enough, where it totally changes the dynamic of what Simi Valley is and was? So that's really all I have to say.

Thank you. Iman Jafri. followed by Bonnie Bennett.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Iman Jaffrey. I've been a Simi Valley resident for eight years. My wife and I are raising three children here, and our family uses Simi Valley's trail system at least once a week. I understand the importance of housing and responsible growth. However, I hope the commission will carefully consider the impact this project may have on the trails, open space, and natural areas that residents use and value. While development projects often include park areas or open space components, those areas are not always a substitute for natural recreation areas. In my experience, development can also create impacts that extend beyond the project boundaries. For example, near the Hummingbird Trail entrance adjacent to the Pacific Oaks development on Cunard Drive, changes made alongside the trail created a hazardous walking surface. My children and I experienced firsthand how conditions on the trail were affected, and two of my children fell and were injured. Whether intentional or not, it demonstrates how development can alter the character and usability of nearby trails. Another example is the recent development activity near Mount Sinai Memorial Park. Shortly after grading began on the hillside, no trespassing signs appeared near trails that residents have long used. Whether those signs were legally justified or not, they created confusion and discouraged public use of areas that many residents believed were accessible. My point is not to oppose housing. My point is that trail access, wildlife habitat, and natural open space deserve meaningful consideration along new development. Once these natural areas are altered, they're difficult or impossible to restore. I ask that any approval includes conditions protecting trail access, preventing encroachment onto trails in open space, and ensuring that adjacent improvements do not create hazards for trail users. I respectfully ask the commission to carefully evaluate the project's impact on nearby trails and open space and to require protections that preserve natural recreation experience for current and future residents. Thank you for your time.

Bonnie Bennett followed by Sheena Koontz.

Hi, I'm Bonnie. I have been living in Simi Valley since 67. I have seen so many changes, a lot of failures in this town. This used to be a very cute little town, quiet. I mean, it's nice to have what I see, but we have too many people as far as I'm concerned. We don't need more people or housing. in this town. I'd hate to see more housing in our mountains. I feel bad for the animals that's out there. I have horses of my own for 40 years and I've ridden in some of these mountains and sometimes I've run across where they block the trails. And I would hate to see that happen again because I've ridden in some of those areas, and I would hate to see any more. When is it gonna stop? California was known for our mountains and our oceans, and I hate to see all this go. I mean, it's just, it's sad. I know some of the people that live on Tapo Canyon, some of the ranches, I know the Gill brands that live up in there, and I just don't, see the purpose of bringing in more people. I think Simi needs to more or less focus on fixing our roads, our lights, our freeways, bring in more of our businesses because every time I, Simi Valley used to, all of our malls used to be full. The parking lots were full. What happened? Every time I look in the paper or Facebook, more businesses are leaving. Why? Instead of focusing on our businesses and everything, instead you guys wanna bring in more people. I don't know, there's something wrong with that picture. I would like to see this land just not touched. I'd like to see our mountains. I would hate to see nothing but hills. And how are these people gonna insure these homes? We just had a fire three weeks ago. I have seen multiple fires since 67. Right now, a lot of insurance companies are not going to insure people with homes in the mountains. I talked to my insurance guy three years ago. A lot of insurance companies are not going to do it because we're a fire risk and a flood risk. Thank you.

Sheila Kuntz, followed by Jeff Nagel.

Hi, my name is Sheila Kuntz, and I lived in Simi Valley for almost 68 years. So I've seen it change a lot. And I have a lot of interest on Ditch Road because that's where I live. And I've had horses for 60 years. And I've ridden all back in these hills. And the new areas that they built, horses aren't allowed on back there in Las Canyons. And I don't know why we can't take a horse back there. But I know that they, built these golf courses to probably have failure and know that they would have the infrastructure to do this to us. And I just wanna say that the fire, we had one a year, two years ago right behind me, and the fire department went through my sheep and llama pastures, then through my horse pastures, just went through my bulldozers, went through the hills, and Shortly after that, my insurance company said they were gonna drop me, but by me putting up gates, and I talked to the fire department, they did, it's told the fire department they didn't have to bulldoze my fences down anymore, they could just use the gates. And my insurance did reinstate me to, have insurance, but it's more than doubled. It's very hard to get fire insurance. I know these houses that are gonna be built, they're very rich, they're huge houses, and they can afford it. I also have a lot of interest what's going on on Ditch Road, because I really don't understand what's, he didn't really elaborate much on Ditch Road. Anyways, and also, the coyotes are terrible, and I've been at my property for 26 years, and in the last two months, I've had two sheep taken down by coyotes, and it's never happened ever before. Any of my big animals, and now they're taken down and eating them in one night. So now I have to put them in little pens every night for safety. And the rattlesnakes, there's lots of them. Anyways, thank you very much.

OK, so Jeff Nagel, then James McGillis.

Thank you. I'm probably here for a selfish type of reason. I just purchased the home at 3-31-62 Anderson Drive that abuts right up against that. I actually closed escrow the day they put up the sign. So I wasn't quite ready for all this, but I'm trying to make sense of the two lots at Ditch and Anderson. and how that's gonna tie into the timing and the architecture, if it's also gonna be that farmhouse model or not, because it almost looks like it could approach a three-story tall with that gable. The reason I bought it, the house, was actually the view of the White Mountain. So I guess where the setbacks are for that house is of particular interest for me. I know it's a one acre lot. I have a half acre. So I'm blessed with a lot of room. But I guess it depends on where those setbacks are going to be. I've got a five-and-a-half-foot retaining wall or privacy wall that I think shares with that, or I don't think it shares with that property. It's about 180 feet long. And the soil on the other side is almost three feet higher than my property, so I'm kind of curious. I guess maybe this is questions for me at a later time if everything goes through as planned. But that would definitely be a big impact on... on drainage, obviously, and pressure on that wall and the property. But I'm also curious, it wasn't anything said really about where people would park for that trail that goes up Dry Canyon, if that would be at the end of that estate, that one acre property at 363. Because right here it says residential estate, and it shows it kind of winding up. And I believe all that's hillside, because Dry Camp, or maybe it's a little further. But I'm not really sure what residential estate means on that map, opposed to open space. Does that mean that's future development? Because I always think, well, you add one house, there's always room for more up the way and how that's going to work. But again, I probably have a lot of selfish reasons considering I just closed escrow the day before. So I guess my questions are if there's a way to find out more specific information on setbacks for that property, for elevation grade on that property, and a little bit more about architecture design on that property as well as where they're gonna park for the trail because it's a really tight road because there's a culvert on one side and then residents on the other side. So thank you for the time.

Mr. McGillis and then Lorraine James.

I think I was next. Members of the Planning Commission, staff, I'm James McGillis, a resident of Simi Valley. My following are my reasons for opposing this project. Simi Valley general plan housing element goals include, quote, balanced community development with housing created for all. The LCDP will be an exclusive gate guarded community available to wealthy homeowners only. In December 2001, the city council changed Lost Canyon Drives to a minor arterial road That road will remain a two-lane road with no passing lanes, no turnouts, no traffic signals at the two entrances of the project. Tapo Canyon Road north of Presidio Drive will be a two-lane bottleneck, not even begun until well into the second phase of the development. If we learn nothing else from the 2025 Palisades Fire and the recent Sandy Fire, it is that a narrow, winding two-lane road is inadequate for quick and effective evacuation during an emergency. The potable water supply is conveyed to the project site through two pressure zones. A third boost pump will be added. Three separate lifts will be required to service the proposed development. The fake lake, as I call it, is not suitable for any form of recreation. At neighborhood council number one, the developer indicated that the fake lake would be maintained using potable water. The entire western US is in the throes of a 20 year drought. There is no conscionable reason for a fake lake created as a view shed. Waterworks number eight charges for lift charges based on location. Within two years after completion, the developer will turn the HOA over to the community. Only then will the homeowners learn what a risky triple lift water system is and how much they must pay, 3.5% extra each year. Station number 47 for the Ventura County Fire Department is two, I'm sorry, is 3.1 miles away. The other station, 46, is 2.1 miles away. Each one of those will require four to six minutes to get to the gates of the Lost Hills development, let alone get inside and navigate those roads. In developer talk, left is right and up is down, and I quote, building setbacks would be typically kept to a minimum to create a more defined space with side setbacks of only five feet. Most streets will have only 10 feet between adjacent dwelling units. Residential lots in about shared HOA areas may have backyards as shallow as five feet deep, which is no backyard at all. The developer's information reads, the reduced rear yard setbacks will allow homeowners to have space for additional backyard amenities such as large covered backyard patios and accessory structures. A footnote might say that only is true if pigs can fly. Until you receive adequate answers to these and other questions you may have, I suggest that you deny this project. Thank you very much.

Lorraine James and then Mayan Spacarelli. Lorraine James, then it looks like Mayan Spacarelli.

I am Lorraine Jones. I live adjacent to Anderson Drive on Blue Ridge Circle. I've lived in Simi Valley since 1967. And I am actually thrilled they are moving all those houses out of Dry Canyon. However, I'm very sad to see the destruction that's been done overall up in the canyons, period. Now, what my big question is, What the heck are those two luxury lots at the end of Anderson Drive and on Ditch Road all about? Why? I'm gonna call those Trojan houses. Because I think the plan is by putting those houses in that spot, it will allocate or allow the builder ultimately to go back and redesign and open up Dry Canyon. Also, it's saying right here, That, okay, they're gonna bring in water pipes to Anderson and Ditch Road, but the question we have in my little neck of the woods is that they're proposing new sewer lines within Anderson Drive to connect to this luxury estate home at the end of Anderson, just on the other side of my new neighbor. So does that mean Anderson Drive is going to be dug up, sewer lines will be laid, it'll be an inconvenience for the neighborhood, and then they'll probably want us all to connect to the sewer line, which will cost each individual homeowner a substantial amount of money. I really want answers on this. Why are those two houses being allowed to be constructed? It does not make any sense whatsoever. And, you know, it's irrelevant anything else that I want to say. This project has already started, and I'm just devastated and deeply saddened to see the destruction that's taken place up there. And I've hiked Dry Canyon and where Big Sky used to be, all those areas for 40 years. It's too bad, you know, it's all developed. But bringing the wagon train around, I want an answer why those two houses are being constructed. What's the motivation for that?

Thank you. Sorry. Mayen Spaccarelli, then James, or excuse me, Jane Burden.

Well, for me, this would truly be a not in my backyard project, because I live right on Temple Canyon, directly across from the project. And even though I'm devastated to see my beautiful view go, I'm not opposed to the project. Development happens, and I certainly admire their endurance. This has been going on for a long, long time. But I would say originally it was presented as this beautiful project, bigger sidewalks, bigger amenities, and unfortunately found that Simi Valley is a coupon town and not that many people probably wanted that, but they keep lowering the quality to increase the quantity, and I just hope we're not gonna come back three months from now and say it's gonna be townhouses, and they're asking for smaller setbacks now, and so all these things obviously are to reduce costs, And it brings up some other questions. I asked at the last meeting about the recreational commercial, which I'm still not entirely sure what that meant. But now it's going to open space, which sounds great. But is there a commitment that that's going to stay undeveloped? because at the time it was committed that that would stay undeveloped, the recreation area, especially for me, the northeast, selfishly that's where I live. Also, What area is gonna be impacted with the grading? I had the question before of where's all the dirt gonna go? Before there was a hillside building ordinance where you couldn't build on hillside, obviously we're taking the hillside down. And with the changes, is some of the dirt gonna end up on the south side of the development? in the area that's gonna be considered open space. And what's happening with the stream, I heard it mentioned that they're gonna put a new channel in. Right now it's a beautiful natural stream that looks really nice in the area. Will it become a wash? There's a wash that leads up to it. Is that just gonna be extended? It'd be nice to see some visuals on what that is all gonna look like. THE ROADS, THE TRAFFIC STUDY, DID YOUR TRAFFIC STUDY INCLUDE THE RESIDENTS?

SIR, IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THE DIUS. AS FAR AS YOUR QUESTIONS, WE WRITE DOWN YOUR QUESTIONS AND WE'LL TRY TO ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS AT THE END. HE JUST ANSWERED THE TRAFFIC STUDY.

But the traffic study question, does it include us up the road and the quarry? Also, the quarry makes a lot of noise. I group around trucks. I don't mind it at all. When the belly dumps and end dumps go down the road empty, they're extremely loud. You might want to put it in the notification to the homeowners that they are going to hear a lot of truck noise coming down the road. and then lost canyons road when it was built that road i don't know who proved the quality of that road but it was horrible i don't know how long the development maintained that road but is lost canyons going to get redone it's a horrible road so is that going to get redone i'm going to have to ask you to kind of wrap it up so that's it but just just those things i'm not opposed i don't want them to be opposed to me when i want to do something and good luck to you guys all right thank you sir

Oops, it was Jane Borden, Bordon, sorry, followed by Crystal Bartholomew.

Okay.

Good evening. My main concern has already actually been brought up, but I wonder how we get the answers for this. At the end of Ditch Road and at the end of Anderson, putting one resident on each, what's the point? Anderson is a very small road. The hospital is right there. If it is to eventually open up that land so they can put more residences, that's gonna be really dangerous for the hospital and traffic in that area. So I'm looking at the long run. Why are we opening up just two residences in those areas? Okay, I live right below all of this, and getting fire insurance has not been fun. The California Fair Plan is probably the worst plan you can get for insurance, and it's very, very costly. So here we're gonna go ahead and continue to build into these spaces, and how are these people gonna afford the fire insurance? Everybody right now in California is having such a tough time, and they're leaving the state. and Simi Valley. We're losing students in schools. Why? Because of all these problems, and now we're gonna continue with this, and everything's so costly. How is this gonna happen, and how do we get answers to these questions that people are asking tonight? You can't answer a question?

Ma'am, as I said, ma'am, we write down your questions and we'll answer them at the end, but we can't have a back and forth while we're doing it. It takes too much time.

That's fine, I just wanna make sure they're answered.

So Christian Bartholomew, and then Jill Abilene.

Hi. So I'm here basically really representing my parents, which they own the lot that's now 4,000 Sapo Canyon Road. Lost Canyon LLC owns the front lot like next to, there's the Chapel Canyon Road and then there's that piece of land and then there's my parents' lot. So basically we have the easement to go to our lot. And really I'm, I think, you know, I mean, like Mayan said, he's next to us, so development happens, so I'm not either opposed or pro. I think it's a good thing in a way, and there's negative impacts, too, and it's kind of neutral on that. My concern is really that we didn't see as much On the modification to the road, I know it's going to be reduced. What I know from being there a lot is there is a lot of big trucks that goes up and down that road, which I think might be of an impact with the development. It's probably going to take into consideration. I think the wider road made more sense, especially with the turnaround lane. That's basically my opinion. And yeah, the answers, and Mayen asked me too, is really the easement also impact and how that road, if it's widened and whatnot, the sewer lines or whatever else is gonna go through, I'd like to be able to be in touch and have answers on how it's gonna look like visually and et cetera. That's it. Thank you.

Jill Avalay followed by Gary Montanari.

Good evening, commissioners and staff. My name is Jill Avila. I'm a 40-year resident of District 1. And I'm also an avid outdoor enthusiast, so I do want to say I appreciate the trails and some of the proposed additional open space. But I have two concerns tonight. One is I'm hoping that staff could just briefly overview our hillside performance standards and address how this project complies with it. And then I spoke back in 2011 right here when this project came before this body regarding the Tapo Canyon right-of-way access and my concerns about the width of that. It's not too hard to imagine if there's an emergent situation what would happen if we had hundreds of autos racing to get home to rescue their pets and children while we have hundreds of families trying to evacuate and first responders trying to get in to address any emergent situations. So I was very concerned about that. And then if you couple that with if Lost Canyon's drive happened to be obstructed in any way, you'd have all of that converging on the narrow Tappel Canyon right of way. So tonight I'm hoping you can address a couple questions. So was the Tappel Canyon right of way reviewed by our public safety agencies, and if so, specifically when. So I'm hoping that we would be prudent enough to take a second look of that in light of what we saw with the Palisades fire. And I'm wondering if, can the Tapa Canyon, if not, if it hasn't been reviewed, can the Tapa Canyon access be re-reviewed in light of the lessons we've learned from recent wildfire evacuations? Thank you.

So Gary Montanari, followed by June Ewart.

Good evening, staff, commissioners. Thank you very much. I've lived on Copperstone Lane since 2014, so I get the privilege of right now seeing and hearing grading six days a week, starting at 7 a.m. But in any event, a couple of things I haven't heard. First of all, I find it incredible that you could say that Residents of 364 homes all north of Lost Canyon can exit onto Tapo Canyon and Lost Canyon in the same time as if there was 180 on each side in the event of a fire and we're in a very high fire district. I can't believe, I can't believe if you put 364 homes north of Lost Canyon that they can all exit in the same time as if there was 180 less homes. Standing aside, right next to my home is a very large ditch called a water retention basin, which is supposed to be filled with gravel, maybe some landscaping. So one question I have is, I can't believe that's required I can't believe if you didn't put an additional 180 homes north of Lost Canyon that that would be required or it would be significantly less. How is that lined with gravel going to impact the wildlife? The other thing I haven't heard addressed by anybody here is apparently a large water tank is going to be constructed in this project. Where is that? What does it entail? How big is it? Why is it necessary? Can somebody answer these questions? 2013 this thing was put up. My Lord, how many times is it gonna change? We lost a golf course and gained 180 homes. Thank you.

So June Ewart followed by Jonathan Beck.

Good evening commissioners. I am June Ewart residing in the unincorporated Ventura county enclave directly bordering the southern edge of this project. I live right off of Anderson. I am here to urge you to deny the requested BAP modifications and specific plan addendments. The developer claims that moving 180 homes north and just leaving two estate lots on our southern border represents no substantial change. However, their own documents reveal three critical falls. Number one, deleting hillside safety rules. To place these two southern lots to the developer's design guidelines red lines, activity asks you to delete the strict safety rule prohibiting custom home building on natural slopes of 20% or steeper. Erasing the hillside safety standard directly above existing county homes is negligent. Number two, fire and evacuation risks. This site is a CAL FIRE designated very high fire severity zone. Introducing this project's construction and density inherently choke bottlenecks and slows the emergency vehicles for existing residents. Three, jurisdictional overreach and contradictory traffic plans. The developer promises to prohibit construction traffic on Anderson Drive to protect our neighborhood, yet their own utility plans mandate trenching our street to an eight-inch water mains and a brand new city sewer line. You cannot lay a sewer main without heavy construction equipment. Furthermore, Anderson Drive is a shared roadway, half belongs to the county. The city lacks unilateral jurisdiction to authorize trenching and shared county roads and forcing municipal infrastructures into septic-reliant neighborhoods without our consent. They are jeopardizing our infrastructure and violating their own traffic rules. for just these two estate lots, why? Please protect our borders, enforce the 20% slope grade, and deny these amendments. Thank you very much, have a good evening.

Jonathan Beck, followed by Abraham Matthew.

Good evening, my name is Jonathan Beck. I've been here in 40 years in the Simi Valley. Every night I go out for a hike in the hills. I'd like to know what your mission here is planning commission. Are you supposed to protect the citizens of this valley or are you gonna provide a little fantasy Disneyland up in the middle of nowhere for some developer? We the people do not need this up there. First of all, if any of you have been on Tapo Canyon, that's one of the worst roads in the world. And you're telling me you're going to make it into a superhighway or something? I mean, for crying out loud, the Sandy Fire. At least with the Sandy Fire, there was a... Street there was a royal was in front of them. This is surrounded by forest or not forest but by a bush The chance of the fires and there's only two ways out one of them on Tapo Canyon the other one on Lost Canyon What are you trying to do? This is going to be insane if there's a fire up there and There's going to be people. We were lucky with the Sandy Fire. Everybody could get out. This, they're stuck up there. You can't get out of that place, that many people. And is it 180 or 360? I keep hearing two different numbers. Are we going to put 180 places in there? And each one of those people, what about water? I mean, we're lucky now. There's plenty of water. But we have a history of droughts. And so we're going to bring a big, huge water tank up there and all this. I mean, this is not for the best interest of the citizens of Simi Valley. It might be the best interest of some developers. The houses are going to be costing well over a million bucks. It's not going to settle the affordability problem. And these people are probably going to build houses on their land, and maybe they'll start a little motel business out there. It's important to realize that we need to, when we say we, you guys are supposed to represent us, not one little developer or whatever. He tried with the golf course, and that didn't work. So now he's coming back with something else. The point being is that there's animals up there. When you look at that field, what do you see, a parking lot? Don't you appreciate the fact that you can go for a drive and there's some wilderness? This is Simi Valley. It's not the San Fernando Valley. And your job as the protectors of this is not to just give in to anybody that comes along and say, we're going to make all kinds of money. This is going to be great for that person, but not for the city. We don't need it. The animals don't need it. The water doesn't need it. The fire, the traffic jams. It's just a complete waste of our time, and I'm voting against it, or I'm against it.

Thank you, sir.

Abraham Matthew? Yes, sir. All right, and then Shelly? Barb? Barb? Boyle?

Commissioners, good evening, folks. I have two or three comments and a couple of suggestions. As someone that lives adjacent to, immediately adjacent to the construction off of Copperstone, I did not know my neighbor was here. How are you, sir? All right, so I've been fortunate to live in Simi from 2000 to 2005, moved away, came back in 2017, and then moved to this home in 2019. A couple of suggestions. Progress, in my opinion, is not going to be stalled. And I think this is a good thing for Simi. It brings in money. It brings in folks that strong opinions. I respect everybody's opinions, but I think we should consider all perspectives. One thing my son asked me, Mr. Nelson, if you can put that bridge back, that'd be awesome. The bicyclists, anyone who goes up Tapa Canyon, you go north, you go on Lost Canyons, you see them almost every day, especially on Saturdays and Sundays. So suggestion that I have is two lanes is not adequate. please consider maybe adding another lane so it's safe. Cell phones. Anyone who lives on the east side and maybe even a little bit on the west side, Data is horrible, especially when there are emergencies. Our internet goes down. The only thing I have there is Wi-Fi. There's no data. The gates automatically open. And my mother lives down the street on Erringer. She's calling me. Something to consider. Perhaps put a data tower out there. I don't know what the restraints are on you folks. with the different agencies, but do consider that because I think that is a safety issue that should be addressed. The south side of the golf course looks great. Mr. Nelson, I've trespassed on your property with my dogs multiple times. I love it, but I suspect in the future that the south side is also going to be developed into homes. Financially, it makes no sense to leave it as open space, so I think consider that in your deliberation as to what is going to happen in the future. The most important thing. If you look at the map, the first traffic light west of the Copperstone is that Eagle flight. Over the last three years, there have been maybe four, three serious accidents. One, a fatality. I happen to be the first one, seeing the gentleman, and I see at nighttime folks driving exceedingly with speed. Consider maybe putting a traffic light, maybe a couple of speed bumps. When I take my son to school in the morning and I have to make a left onto Lost Canyons, it is difficult. Because folks are coming down, not at 45, 55 to 60. That's all I got, sir.

All right, thank you, sir. All right. And Shelly, or really, you are the last card I have, unless there's any more in there.

I'm Shelly Boyle. I live on the north end of Tapo Canyon. And I believe when all this started in the beginning, they was going to improve Tapo Canyon Road and Lost Canyon. How long ago was that? Nothing's been done. You have a park down there. The people park along Tapo Canyon. I've numerous times have come down that canyon with people that have been out hiking, standing in the middle of the road. Somebody's gonna get hit there, so that needs to address. I assume they're gonna improve those roads. But why is it proposed when all the dirt's being moved up there, if this is a proposal? Question, if this is proposed, they're moving tons of dirt. They've probably got 30 or 40 scrapers and all that up there. So wouldn't have this already been approved before they're doing that? I just, I don't understand the last time they built all those houses over there, there was a major money problem because they sold them to people and then people, the houses were reappraised. Simi Valley has tons of empty businesses. We don't have a mall. You're gonna bring in more expensive houses. People don't shop here. There's other things we need to focus on before this. But it is money and I realize it's all about money.

Okay, I don't have any more cards. So are there any comments from staff regarding statements made during the public hearing?

Yes, we have responses. And Elizabeth, are you ready or want me to start?

I'll let you start.

So if I miss anything, please ask me. There were a lot of comments. Thank you for all your comments. The number of questions on the trails. So regarding the public trails, just like any other public trail, there's refuse issues. Hopefully users of the trails could pack in their trash and take it out. The... question about there's a number of questions on the two lots ditch road and anderson drive those are two single family lots proposed so they are one as miss rich said earlier there's one house is allowed per lot so two lots two homes are approved their state adu allowances if they want to build adus the um There is no application to grow from those two lots northbound. Just like we're here tonight, there's a public hearing for any changes to the plan. The specific plan involves a cap and a document of the 360... 364. 364 units. There's an overall cap for the project. So if there ever was a proposal in the future, five years, 10 years, 15 years from now, to re-change that, we'd all be back here again to look at a consideration. So that's the proposal for that. Just looking at my notes. I'll have the applicant refer back to the to the water into proposed lake. They might have an answer to that. I will refer to, when I'm done, I'll refer to Public Works and any comments on the Tapu Canyon design, how it complies. The project was reviewed by Ventura County Fire Protection District in terms of roadway access regarding their access requirements to the site and to address evacuations. Those are found to be adequate for Ventura County Fire, which is our jurisdictional partner that reviews this project. The recreational commercial zone is going away. and also refer to public works regarding or the applicant whoever answers first regarding the where the excess dirt or is there excess dirt being removed with the grading activities and where that's being placed um also we'll confirm um i'll ask staff to confirm if temple canyon road's being developed north of lost canyon's drive or not or if it's staying as is Questions regarding fire insurance, we go back to the purchaser of the property or the developer. That's a private matter. The water tank was already approved. This is a modification to an existing approval. There's a water tank location. And I believe the, do you have a location on the water tank?

Isn't it?

It's in the north.

It's right below the, isn't the water tank like, oops, wrong way. I just shot myself in the eye. Isn't it like right up there? It's in this area here.

Is that the right location, Mr.? Yeah.

Isn't that pretty close?

So as far as the need for a water tank, the water study's been analyzed. The water tank's been approved since prior to 2013. It's in the environmental document. That's not being changed. I'll have the applicant confirm, but I believe there is no sewer line proposed on Anderson Road. There is no, there may have been some misinformation out there as far as a sewer line being added. So we'll clarify that it's not being added. There's a question about the hillside performance standards. So this project has been analyzed for the city's hillside performance standard requirements in terms of development within 20% slope areas. The two lots at the bottom of the site talked about today are not allowed to develop in the hillside areas over 20% slope. They have to be on pad areas of less than 20% slopes. The area... where the homes were being relocated at the former golf course site. The golf course site is now called a disturbed area, so it's no longer subject to the slope restrictions because that site's already been graded when the golf course was constructed. There are some additional areas within that proposed home relocation, and those properties mountainside adjustments pursuant to the city's hillside ordinance are exempted when those roads, when roadsides, the streets being built are graded out and that they support the public streets and the private streets that develop the layout. So some of those additional slopes are being eliminated to support the, as you can see here, the street system. So those areas were found to be exempted from the 20% standards. So a whole process has gone through to identify these allowances where the homes could go and comply with the hillside performance standards. There was another comment on Las Cañas Drive. The existing roadway, that's not the new roadway. It's gonna be, I believe it was a slight minor realignment. THERE IS A HILLSIDE AREA NEAR TAPO CANYON ROAD IN LAS CANYONS WHICH WILL BE GRADED BACK. A FULL PUBLIC ROAD WILL BE BUILT ON LAS CANYONS DRIVE BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS. THAT ROAD THAT EVERYONE DRIVES ACROSS NOW IS A TEMPORARY ROADWAY TO THE FORMER GOLF COURSE SITE THAT WAS TEMPORARY THE WHOLE TIME. SO IT WILL BE UP TO CITY STANDARDS IN TERMS OF IMPROVEMENTS THERE. I will stop there. I'm not sure if I missed anything, Elizabeth.

The only other thing that I'd like to add is a reminder that this is an approved project. The grading that we're all seeing out there on the site now is for the 184 lots that have the tentative map for those lots have been recorded authorizing that construction that we're seeing out there. The 180 lots that we're talking about are also approved. We're just changing that location. So just as we're talking about this proposal that these, this isn't a new project. This project goes back to 2013. You could even take it back to 2011 or even 1992. It's just now, we're just now seeing it start construction so it's that anticipation of what will it mean for these new residents. So just as a reminder that The project as is approved, the project as it's approved with those houses down Lost Canyons Drive or on the south side of Lost Canyons Drive, the developer could come in and build that project as it's approved. They could record that map and build the project. This is what they're proposing is an improvement by leaving that area south is open space. We can adjust the trails. It'll be a public amenity, so.

And if that is open space, it has to remain open space. It can't be developed in the future, is that correct?

So to develop the open space that we're changing that general plan and land use and zoning. If somebody came in tomorrow and said, I want to build houses down there, we'd be doing a specific plan amendment, general plan amendment, zone change, plan development permit, and tentative map, similar as we're doing tonight. to develop that site. There'd be an EIR, some form of CEQA that would study that, bringing it up to 2026. So it wouldn't be a slam dunk. It would need to go through the public process. We'd be going through planning commission. We'd be going to neighborhood council. We'd be going to city council.

And just to confirm if somebody did come in tomorrow with that, because there's a general plan amendment required and a specific plan amendment required, there would not be any protections from the Housing Accountability Act, so it would be a completely discretionary review from the city council.

All right, so to address some of the traffic comments, and I'll be brief, I think Mr. Gibson already touched on the pavement condition on Lost Canyons Road. Again, this has been a driveway. There has been an easement over this for public access for a number of years. That will be improved with a new surface. In fact, it would be a full-depth pavement, well, not necessarily rehabilitation, but reconstruction. As it is, it does not have the ability to support the amount of traffic that would be carried by the roadway in the future classified as a minor arterial. So, again, that roadway is being reconstructed. There were some questions about the, oh, I'm sorry. Does the traffic study include residents surrounding? Yes. So when we do traffic studies, as always, we do traffic counts. And those traffic counts capture the existing traffic that's on the roadway network. So any trips that are generated by the homes or the quarry that exists in Joe Brand, what have you, all those businesses up there that's already being captured is being recognized by the traffic study. We also have a cumulative condition, which the update, the memo that was prepared by Michael Baker and Associates, or Michael Baker International, looks at what the city does when the general plan is fully built out. So the level of service that is reflected in condition four, which is full build out of the general plan, shows what would happen if development of everything that we have planned in the general plan were to occur. The result of this development shows that everything still operates at level of service C, which is at our threshold. As far as capacity is concerned, I wanted to make sure that I took a look at this. We do in the traffic section by annual counts to determine what the traffic levels are on the roadways. And I had mentioned earlier, we are seeing trending down after COVID. A lot of this is due to work from home and other factors, people doing more of the home delivery type situation, but there's various factors. Table Canyon Road north of Lost Canyons currently carries about 1,300 vehicles per day, again, well below about 10% of the capacity of the roadway. Table Canyon south of Lost Canyons, about 2,400. We are anticipating that this project would generate about nine trips per single-family home. That's the current trend in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. So we're looking at about nine trips per single family home or approximately 3,500 ADT or average daily traffic. So again, if every single trip that came from the Lost Canyons Development used Tappo Canyon Road, you'd be looking at about 5,900 vehicles, again, about 30%, 40% of the capacity. Lost Canyons west of Tappo Canyon currently carries about 1,200 vehicles per day, again, well below in the future capacity, well below what it would be. Erringer, North of Legacy is 3,800 vehicles per day. So even if a portion of the trips were to travel on Lost Canyons toward Erringer Road, it's 3,800 vehicles per day. Erringer Road is a four-lane divided highway. It can carry up to 30,000 vehicles per day. That capacity is certainly not being used today. So all things considered, if you take the 800 homes in Big Sky, the 364 homes in Lost Canyons, Plus anything that is on Tapo Canyon north, you have two exit points, sufficient capacity for any kind of emergent event that may occur. There was one other thing. Tapo Canyon north of Lost Canyons, I believe there is a short section of Tapo Canyon north of Lost Canyons that is being improved. North of Lost Canyons is technically the county, so the county would need to weigh in as to whether there are improvements, but to my knowledge, they have not sought any. And that's all I have. Oh, bike lanes. Yes, there's bike lanes on all of the improved roadways. So Lost Canyons Road will be 40 feet wide, bike lanes on each side, and same thing with Tapo Canyon Road. So again, currently these roadways do not have bike lanes. So bikes are at their own risk. They're traveling in the shared vehicle lane at this point. They will have a dedicated facility upon full construction of the roadway.

And a couple more comments. There was a comment about cell service. Staff has reached out to the applicants to proactively reach out with the big three or big four cellular companies to explore this site since construction is starting up. But there might be opportunities to add cell service enhancements to that area while infrastructure is being installed. So we hope We certainly would hope to see progress there. The city gets a lot of complaints in the Big Sky area and definitely this area. So again, cellular coverage is a private enterprise, but with additional homes, we'd certainly like to see additional service our new our new resident on Anderson, I forgot to mention or if he's still here, but I See him somewhere there is Clarify that two custom homes are not part of the Upcoming design review of the house projects. Those are a staff level review they would still have to comply with the specific plan theme, which some of the images we show tonight, but it won't be part of a public review. But staff will be happy to meet with you and any other homeowner if they have questions about setbacks or some of the requirements on those custom lots, or any of the other lots for that matter. Regarding that, a lot of comments about growth and development. Again, this project was contemplated or back in this room in 2011 2013 so there's a number of uh prior hearings there may be a lot of new people to the community that didn't realize this is already approved um this is part of the city's general plan which has laid out the whole development of the city and uh Some may want to consider being lucky to live in Ventura County because we have hillside and growth restrictions surrounding the community. So this kind of is an area that's already locked in where development is allowed to occur to some extent. And going outside this urban restriction boundary, changes to add additional housing would require a vote of the people through like an election like yesterday. So... That is looked at in a general plan. We'd be happy to discuss the general plan with anyone as far as the existing zoning and development of the plans, as far as our future growth outlook or what the city and the county have done to regulate where growth is going. I think some of those questions will defer back to the applicant. We'll try to make sure they answer some of those questions about the existing grading dirt and some of those other questions I mentioned.

So would the applicant like to respond to any comments made by the public?

Thank you, Commissioners. I think a lot of the comments that I heard were kind of in several different categories, fire, open space, environmental impacts, and wildlife. I think what we're proposing to do is going to improve on all those areas. There is a review process that the city has when an applicant makes a application. It's called a DAC meeting, Developer Advisory Committee, I believe is the name of it. And when we presented the initial plan to relocate the 32 lots in the northeast portion of the site, I know Venture County Fire Department representatives were there, and they were saying, we really like that. We want to get them out of these canyon areas. And that area to the northeast was one of those canyon areas because it abuts right next to the Whiteface and Campman area. So this area up in here, These were canyon areas that we got rid of the homes, and the fire department was very happy about that. Plus, they knew that they didn't have to service it by going up Tapple Canyon Drive to get to it either, even though there was a planned bridge. They were happy to see that. We've now gotten rid of all the development, with the exception of two lots, here in Dry Canyon, which is another major canyon. This is where some of the recent fires have happened, and similarly Tapple Canyon. So we're putting all the homes in a more defensible area, from a fire perspective prior to us being able to even have our application be deemed complete the fire district required what they refer to as a fire protection plan i can bring it up if you like but it's a 130 pages of a fire analysis that was done on this project they look at different wind speeds different directions of wind types of fires canopy fires low-lying fires And what they deemed in that analysis was that this project met all the requirements of Ventura County Fire Department, the local requirements and the like. It's a very extensive document. In addition to that, we've got a fuel mod zone around the perimeter of the property. I'm not saying fires can't happen, they happen, but this is probably the most defensible plan that you can have as compared to what the original plan proposed. An open space. I don't think there's too many projects around that will provide nearly 90% of the property of 700 acres with open space. That's pretty amazing. You're right. At some point in time, somebody could come in and ask to put an application to develop this open space, but it would be, in my opinion, very challenging. Many of the areas, and I don't want to hook up my computer to prolong this, but many of these areas are conservation easements. Every time I get up there, okay, there you go. All this area up in here is one large conservation easement and that's for the gnatcatcher habitat, the coastal sage shrub. All this area up in here. This area down in here on the west side of Tapo Canyon is also another large conservation easement for coastal sage shrub. The residential estate areas that you see in here have got a deed restriction on them. that the agencies made us place there that before anybody was to do any development down there, if they were proposing to do development down there, they would be required to do a gnat catcher survey, a coastal sage survey, and would have to mitigate any impacts associated with that. We also have another conservation easement down in this area for our 1602 permit, another one along this creek area in here, and there's a small one in here. This area to the north that's now designated as open space as part of this plan is where we'll be owned by Toll Brothers and it'll be part of the HOA and they'll be maintaining those community trails up there. So from a trash standpoint, they will be maintained and hopefully that will be minimized. I think we're reducing environmental impacts. There is a lot of impacts down in this area with creeks and coastal state shrub and other flora and fauna habitats, similarly to Dry Canyon. That's all being eliminated. There's a significant amount of trees up in this area in Tapple Canyon Road that will not be removed now as a result of this request. Similarly, when we removed the development in the northeast section, there were trees to be removed. Those won't be impacted. And as far as the wildlife is concerned, I mean, essentially, as I said, you've got 90% of the property, it's open space, a residential estate, and lots. The question came up was why are these two lots down here? We don't own, we being Newport Pacific Land Company, we only own this area in Dry Canyon here and Tapo Canyon here. There's another property owner that owns the residential state in open space. So what they wanted to be able to do was have a home there so they could get access, walking access, to these adjacent properties. I think most people realize you can't landlock Anybody they have to be able to have access to the property they own so that's the primary reason why they're located here and here So the property owner can get into the residential state areas that they own and also this open space There will be no sewers Public sewer for these two lots here and this other lot here will be on septic tank systems They won't be any public sewer

Like many of the residents already have in this area down here.

In regards to the dirt balance, it's all being balanced on site. We do not want to haul any dirt off or nor are we proposing to bring any dirt on the south side of Lost Canyons Drive. Cellular service, you're right, Sean, we've been asked to look at that. We are looking at that to make sure that we can try to improve that up in this area here. Pedestrian bridge, it will be replaced. Unfortunately, during the grading, there was a soil failure, so we had to temporarily move the bridge until the grading work was done and the site improvements were completed, but the bridge will be replaced. And... That was the notes that I took. Is there anything else, Sean or Elizabeth, do you think I didn't address that? Excuse me? Well, there is, well, the lake is serving a couple different functions. The lake is a storm drain.

If you could address the diaspora, I'm sorry, into the microphone. I apologize. Thank you.

My apologies. Just typical reaction. The lake is serving a couple different purposes. One, it's a storage facility during storm events. Two, it is an amenity for the project to have that. It also is going to be able to serve as currently, the current lake that's out there. I think during certain fires, I know that the Ventura County Fire Department, when they're fighting fires, use their helicopters to drop down into that area with buckets to help fight fires. So there's a couple different reasons why it's being proposed.

So for clarification, you said that it was also used for stormwater detention, is that correct?

Correct. We're not increasing any of the stormwater flow from this project site. We have to retain all the stormwater onsite so it doesn't increase the historical storm drainage offsite. Is that the purpose of the water retention base?

I'm sorry, sir. We're done with the public testimony. Is there anything else?

No, unless there's questions you'd like me to try to answer.

Commissioners, do you have anything for the applicant? No? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, no further questions. We'll close the public testimony portion of the hearing. Comments or questions from members of the Planning Commission?

I'm gonna let somebody else talk first.

Okay. Okay, I'll go. Okay, Commissioner Mann.

So, obviously, point of clarification. This is already an approved project that's been going on for almost 16 years. Okay. So tonight, are we doing just the 180 houses is the question? Or what is the status on these two estate lots? Are they already approved? Or are we approving the moving of the 180 or 100, whatever the number is, and doing something with the two estate? Or are the two estate lots a separate issue? Because that seems to be a question for people.

Right. So in the existing general plan amendment diagram on the left, The areas in yellow on the south side of Lost Canyons Drive, that's where 180 lots are currently approved for development. The proposal tonight is to move 178 of those lots to the area north of Lost Canyons Drive on the area... I don't have the other screen. Okay. How do I move it? Oh, there we go. Okay. So the area here in orange, that is the area we're doing a general plan amendment to make it residential medium to accommodate 178 lots. Okay. The two lots remaining at the bottom, one on Anderson, one on Ditch Road, those are the remaining two lots of the approved 180 lots.

So they're already approved. We're not moving those. We're moving 178.

We're moving those two down at the bottom.

We are moving them.

We are moving them to further south on the last canyons development being directly adjacent to Anderson and Ditch. Previously they've been further up in this yellow. Okay.

Yeah, the request is a subdivision. We're creating legal lots down there which don't currently exist.

Okay. That's it for now until I formulate my next ones.

Okay. And just for clarification, I know the answer, but so anybody on Ditch Road or Anderson Road could build an ADU if they had space on their property, correct? And so they could...

Correct. Most of the neighbors on Ditch Road and Anderson Drive are in unincorporated Ventura County. Correct.

And so they'd be under the auspices of the county, and it's actually an easier process than it is for us. Potentially. Potentially, yes. Okay. Just for clarification.

And the rest of the lots are going to be in an HOA that I'm assuming is not going to be able to have ADUs.

362 lots will be located within the HOA, the HOA that Toll Brothers will create. Or in any state laws that they could not be prevented to have ADUs, Toll, that HOA could restrict them.

I'll speak a bit more to the ADUs and HOAs question. Initially when ADUs were mandated by the state, HOAs could prevent them. Now it's a bit of a gray area because I think the 2022 laws changed it where HOAs cannot unreasonably restrict the construction of the state-exempt ADUs. As such, it becomes more of a case law question as to whether if somebody wants to build an ADU, they can sue the HOA. So there's whether the HOA wants to deal with that.

Thank you. I just have more of a comment to some of the audience comments. My house was in Sandy Fire, and I was one of the homes that was right back in the back of the one way in and out. So I fully understand what you're saying about the insurance. and I fully understand about what you're saying about not so fair, fair plan, but we do live in California. I do also understand what you're talking about, lights and roads and businesses being the priority, and I also want to say that we do live in California, so it's not more of a comment, it's a statement that think about who you vote for. But this project was approved, so tonight we're not necessarily voting on whether we're approving this project or not. We're voting on whether we're approving this amendment of moving the lots, and I like the more open space versus less open space better. So that's where I stand on this.

If I could ask for clarification, in the packet, Isn't there an easement? There's the Tapo Trailhead. Isn't there an easement at the Tapo Trailhead?

I would have to have the applicant speak to the easements they have for the trails.

Does the applicant know what I'm talking about? I'm going to reopen the mic. I'll just ask the applicant. I'll defer to counsel.

since I didn't close it. I think, Commissioner Rice, what you're referring to is there's a trail easement that's gonna be granted to the Park District that's gonna go through Dry Canyon, okay?

Okay, that's on the other side of it. I was thinking.

But then, in addition to that, at Tapple Canyon Road and Lost Canyons Drive intersection, we will be dedicating to them, in fee simple, property on the east side of Tapple Canyon Road at that intersection so they can have a trailhead there. So the residents, as you probably know, people park on the side of Tapple Canyon Road. It's not very safe. And this is what the district has wanted for a long time, to be able to get a trailhead there so people could park safely, come in and out of that area safely, and have access to all the trails that are to the east.

Thank you. That's exactly what I was asking. I appreciate it. I'm sorry, I can't answer that question. All right, any other planning commissioners?

Do you want to close the public hearing?

Yeah.

Well, you can take public comment, and I believe we closed the public comment portion. If it is useful for the commissioners to ask questions to assist in their deliberations, you may ask the applicant or anyone But the public comment's right to come up and provide comment to the commission is over. But again, if the commission finds it's helpful, I would encourage you to ask those questions of the applicant. Okay.

So, Commissioner Mann.

Okay, so the current roadway on Lost Canyons. That is and has always been, evidently, a temporary road. So the new road that's going to be put in there now will have traffic in each direction. We got rid of the race center median, and we have bike lanes on both sides. On Lost Canyons or is that on Tapo Canyon?

Two different things. So Lost Canyons Road is an easement, technically a driveway to the golf course. Got it. That will be improved with bike lanes and two lanes in each direction. Okay.

Any wider lanes?

will be wider yes okay the the existing roadway width is is unimproved shoulders does not have sufficient width for bicyclists and we do know from strava data and various others that it and the bicycle master plan effort that is is a fairly frequented recreational route for for cyclists okay avid cyclists i would say so this is uh ultimately the uh that's taba canyon road so uh the There will be 118 feet of right-of-way dedicated to the city that ultimately, if the soil issues are resolved, a much wider arterial street could be constructed on Tapo Canyon Road. Initially, it was proposed as one lane in each direction with bike lanes and a raised center median that would then terminate at the intersection with Lost Canyons Road with a left turn lane. That is not feasible at this time. My understanding, and I'm not a geologist by any stretch, but my understanding of the hillside that is immediately to the east, there's a clay layer that if disturbed, the topsoil could then fall off. So unless we're digging back several feet and up a significant elevation and stabilizing that slope, it would not be possible to construct the roadway and would also make this project infeasible. Okay. Thank you.

So the Tappel Canyon portion is going to be the same width as it is now?

No, it will also be improved. It will be wider than it is now. It'll be wider.

Both streets are going to be wider.

Wider than they are existing, and there will be a sidewalk on Tappel Canyon Road.

Thank you.

Anything else?

No? No?

Okay, any other comments from members of the Planning Commission?

I got a couple things.

Okay.

Again, we're talking about a project that's been approved. We're just moving the open space, making more open space. And if we deny it tonight, all that property on the far left side above Ditch Road could be developed. all the property to the east could be developed as it's been already approved. What we're talking about now is making more open space for our public use for all those people on Ditch Road, Anderson Road. The property where the golf course was, Obviously, the golf course didn't make it. So as opposed to we're not relocating gnats, we're not relocating snakes, we're putting houses on that golf course property. And that's basically what the proposal is tonight. I think we've gone through all the steps that applicants done you know, their due diligence. And I think what's best for our city and our residents is approving this tonight. That's my opinion.

Look, it's a project that's been going on 16 years, so all we're talking about is moving a piece of, a chess piece on the board from south of Lost Canyons to north, kind of tightening up the area. It seems to be with what we have, the development's already approved. We can't go back and take away the development. That's not what we're here for tonight. We're just simply relocating where the approved houses are going to be. Everything else is already in place. We have no control or no say over any of that. So with that, it makes more sense to put them all together versus having them all spread out. That seems to be the words of wisdom for the fire department. It's a project that's already approved. It makes more sense to take what we have and do what we can to make it better.

I mean, I already said what I said. But I do believe that this project on the right looks better to me than the project on the left. I believe in more open space. I believe that's what we're getting, more open space. We do have to live with development, whether we like it or not. And this project on the right looks better to me. This project on the left is already approved. So if we deny the project on the right, we're going to get the project on the left.

OK. Well, I've seen this project for the last 15 years. And each time something new pops up. And I've hiked most of those trails, at least. I really like the trailheads. I will say that. And I agree with Commissioner Chrisman about the one on the right looking better. You know, I really the thing is, is that, look, this half of this is already done. I mean, like, there's really nothing we can do. Half of this project is going to get done the way it's going to get done right now because it's our half of it's already been approved. The other half, if we do nothing, then basically what I'm afraid is going to happen is, is that that yellow part on the left, is it? The state's gonna change the rules and instead of them getting another 180 homes, they're gonna get 360 more homes and there'll be nothing we can do about it because that's the direction we're going. So I think we're better off approving this the way that it is. I really do. I think that we're much better off. I don't like the setbacks, but I'd rather have the homes closer together and have more open space. And they are nice homes. Toll homes are nice homes. And this is a very nice project. And I really think that these people have owned this land for a long time, and it is their property, and they should have the right to develop the property. And yes, I hope that you people who've come out here feel that we've listened to you. Maybe we haven't done everything you've wanted, but we have listened to you. So I'm in favor of the project the way it is. although there is one little thing, and that's the coastal contemporary. I like the design, I just don't think it really fits Simi Valley, but other than that, I like the project. Okay, so I'm willing to call for the vote. I'm sorry, I will call for reading of the resolution.

Resolution number SVPC08-2026, a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley recommending to the City Council approval of a general plan amendment, GPA 2024-0003, zone change ZS 2025-0003, specific plan amendment SPS 2025-0002, Plan Development Permit PDS 2025-0003 and a tentative map TT 2025-0002 to reconfigure the approved Lost Canyons Development Project To remove the approved golf course, relocate 178 approved lots from the south side of Lost Canyons Drive to the north side. Locate two lots on the south end of the site and other amendments from an approved 364-lot residential subdivision on a 1,770-acre site located west of Tapo Canyon Road and Bennett Road, east of Copperstone Lane north and south of Lost Canyons Drive, and north of Anderson Drive and Ditch Road, Lost Canyons, and the adoption of an amendment to the final environmental impact report.

The chair will now entertain a motion.

I move to adopt the resolution recommending to the city council approval of GPA-2024-003, Z-S-2025-003, SP-S-2025-0002, PD-S-2025-0003, TT-2025-0002, and addendum to the Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program.

A motion was made by Commissioner Tolson. May I have a second?

Second. Sorry, ladies first. I'll second.

second was made by uh commissioner chrisman call for the vote the vote passes unanimously the motion passes there is no appeal period for the general plan amendment zone change specific plan amendment planned development permit modification and tentative map and the item will proceed to the city council with the planning commission's recommendations

And just to clarify for the public, there will be a city council public hearing on this item for the final consideration, so you may also get noticed again for the city council public hearing coming up in the next several weeks. Proceeding to the next item.

Oral communications and reports. Does staff have anything to report?

Vice Chairperson Rice, staff has no items to report tonight.

Do any commissioners have anything to report? No? Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board, does staff have anything to report?

No items tonight.

Okay, Tree Advisory Board?

No items.

Not April, there shouldn't be any. No items tonight. Okay. This concludes the meeting of June 3rd, 2026. The next scheduled meeting will be June 17th, 2026. The meeting is adjourned.