Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, the Planning Commission meeting of August 26th, 26th, 2026 will come to order. Ladies and gentlemen, please rise and face the flag for the Pledge of Allegiance. Please remove your hats or head coverings. Civilians, please place your hand over your heart. Veterans and active military duty personnel not in uniform may render a military hand salute.

Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance to

Thank you. The secretary will call roll.

Commissioner Mann.

Present.

Commissioner Tolson.

Here.

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

Here.

Here. There it is. May I have a motion for approval of the agenda?

I move to approve the agenda as presented.

I'll second it.

Unless there are any objections, the agenda stands approved. Approval of the minutes. There are no minutes to approve. That's a good, quick one. Declaration of conflict. The secretary will read the declaration of conflict.

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

Seeing none, we'll continue on. This is the time allotted for public statements or comments on all items other than the public hearing items. Is there anyone in the chamber wishing to be heard? Okay, next item, correspondence. Is there any correspondence from the Deputy Director, City Planner?

Yes, Chairperson Kennedy. We have one supplemental staff report for agenda item 10a1 regarding a correspondence received on the North Canyons development project that's been provided to you, posted on the website, and copies were placed out in the lobby.

Okay, next item is consent calendar. There are no consent calendar items. Next item, continued business. This is the time and place set for a continued public hearing on the consideration of ANX-0077, GPA-0073, Z-S-0613, PD-S-1054, TT-5658-A, DA-2026-0001, and ANX2024-0001, and Z-S-2024, and the Environmental Impact Report, EIR, and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, therefore. Are there any ex parte communications to report?

I had a meeting with a developer and we had a conversation about the project. I also talked to or listened to a couple of residents that live in unincorporated areas, different unincorporated areas.

I also had a Zoom meeting with the developer and discussed the project.

I had a meeting with a developer as well via Zoom.

I had a scheduled meeting with a developer, but that got canceled because of a family emergency.

Along those same lines, I was out of state on vacation and had a Zoom meeting with the developer, and Mr. Becerra was on that call as well. Next item, may we have an oral report by staff on this matter?

Yes, good evening, Chairperson Kennedy, members of the Planning Commission. Yes, this is a continued public hearing on the North Canyon Ranch development application and associated entitlements, including the proposed annexation of that site and the discussion on the related island annexations. This was continued from 2025. And tonight's item is a Planning Commission hearing and this would be a recommendation on the action to the City Council any Any final approval the project does not occur tonight and This process would be gone through again at the City Council level so just let everyone in the audience know that this there's no final action tonight and If this does move forward to the City Council, a proper public noticing will also occur when that date is scheduled. So I'll turn over the presentation to Senior Planner Elizabeth Richardson.

Okay, good evening. Tonight we will be reviewing the proposed North Canyon Ranch and annexation for a new 207 unit subdivision. There are three components of the project being reviewed tonight. The North Canyon Ranch subdivision, annexation of the North Canyon Ranch site into the city limits, and the annexation of seven of the nine county islands. We will review each of these further in tonight's presentation. The North Canyon Ranch project is a request to subdivide a 160-acre site for a 207-unit subdivision consisting of 157 single-family residences, 50 multi-family units, and open space. The proposal requires a general plan amendment, pre-zone, plan development permit, tentative map, and a development agreement. Tonight's review will only be for the overall site layout. Building designs of the homes, landscaping, site improvements, and retaining wall design will be reviewed under a future plan development permit modification. North King Ranch was first scheduled for a public hearing on January 8th, 2025. However, due to a lack of a quorum, the project was continued to January 22nd, 2025. On January 22nd, the public hearing was opened and four members of the public spoke. The meeting was continued again to allow staff additional time to study the fiscal impacts of the project and negotiate a development agreement. The project tonight was noticed for public hearing by placing public hearing notice signs at First Street and Falcon Drive, running a public hearing notice ad in the newspaper, mailing postcards to property owners in a 300-foot radius of the North Canyon Ranch project, and to property owners in the seven affected county islands. Noticing was completed 20 days in advance of tonight's meeting to comply with state law requiring 20-day notice for projects with a zone change. The project is located north of the Simi Valley Town Center between First Street and the intersection of Erringer Road and Falcon Street, and is located outside the city limits, but is within the sphere of influence and the city urban restriction boundary, also known as the curb. The site is currently vacant, and portions of the site have been previously disturbed with grading, unimproved dirt roads, and placement of fill dirt from the Simi Valley Town Center construction. Existing vegetation consists of coastal sage scrub, small patches of cactus scrub, highly disturbed non-native grass habitats, and riparian scrub in some locations along the drainage courses and debris basins. The tree report for the project identified 16 trees on the property, and most of the natural habitat on the site was disturbed by the domestic animal grazing activities. And this is a view of the project site from the end of Falcon Street looking west. And this is a view of the site from the end of First Street looking northeast. The city's general plan has designated the North Canyon site as medium density residential, moderate density residential, and open space. In 2005, a general plan prescreen was reviewed by the city council and granted authorization to proceed with an application for a general plan amendment. The proposed general plan amendment will not change the existing land use designations but will instead redistribute them to follow the boundary of the proposed development. Single family residential will be located in the medium density residential land use and multifamily residential units will be in the moderate density residential land use. The North Canyon project site is currently zoned county open space. As part of the annexation, the city will pre-zone the project site to residential medium and residential moderate density and open space consistent with the project layout. The residential medium zone allows single-family residences, while the residential moderate zone allows both single-family and multi-family residential development. For the North Canyon Ranch project, the single family homes will be located in the residential medium zone and the multifamily residential will be located in the residential moderate zone. The project site is proposed to be subdivided into 157 single family residential lots and 50 multifamily residential units. The multifamily residential will either be senior housing or 25% affordable per the conditions. Proposed development will disturb approximately 90 acres of the site to create lots ranging in size between 5,000 square feet and 15,829 square feet in area. The project will extend Falcon Street from First Street to Erringer Road. And the general plan mobility section has identified this connection as an unbuilt minor arterial roadway. And by connecting the road, the project further complies with the general plan. Two new one acre parks will also be included in the site identified here on the map. And site greeting will not result in soil being imported. The remainder of the site will remain dedicated open space. The project site will be located within the hillside performance standards or HPS boundary. The purpose of the HPS is to preserve the hillside areas, promote single family housing in the hillside and slope areas less than 20%, maintain open space and scenic resources, and prohibit most grading on slopes over 20%. Residential density for projects in the HPS is not calculated using the underlying zoning and is instead based on slope density using the steepness of the land where the development is proposed to calculate the allowed number of units. On this map, the area where slopes range between zero and 20% are shown in green, purple, and red colors, and the area that is gray are slopes over 20%. Based on the analysis of the slope map, the project can accommodate the 207 units. The project site is located within the state's and Ventura County Fire Department's very high fire hazard zone. Development of the site requires the fire department's approval of site plans for fire protection features, including adequate fire apparatus access, roadway widths, turnaround areas, placement of fire hydrants, installation of the fire sprinklers inside the houses, and establishment of fuel modification zones for brush clearance. The fire department has reviewed the tentative map for fire safety to ensure it conforms with the applicable codes, and the map was modified in response to fire department comments, including removal of two lots. A fire protection plan and fuel modification plan has preliminary been reviewed. and approved by the fire department. Together they are designed to minimize fire hazards and risks that may threaten life and property. In the future, the fire department will also review the final landscaping plans to ensure that all plant materials comply with the fire department regulations. A unique design feature of the project is a 60 foot high wall. Retaining wall, the wall is proposed to be located on the southwest area of the site adjacent to the first street extension. The wall will be stepped with two different sections being 30 feet tall and a 10 foot wide step for drainage and landscaping. The purpose of the wall is to hold back the slope created by cutting in the first street extension. The wall is a notable feature of the project. However, the design still requires final engineering design and approval. Staff has discussed with the applicant opportunities to obtain an easement with the adjacent property owner, which could result in a design that would not require such a tall retaining wall. To develop the North Canyon Ranch site, the 160-acre property and seven of the nine county islands must be annexed into the city limits by Ventura LAFCO. Annexation of the North Canyon site is required because the site is larger than 40 acres. And by annexing North Canyon Ranch, LAFCO policy also requires the annexation of seven of the nine county islands. The acronym LAFCO stands for Local Agency Formation Commission and is a state agency that has a sole authority over changes to the city boundaries and special districts. LAFCOs discourage sprawl and encourage orderly development and establish the sphere of influence for each city or agency. To initiate the annexation of North Canyon's ranch, the city council must first recommend the city file an application with LAFCO. Next, the city will formally apply for annexation of the North Canyon Ranch Project site with LAFCO, and then they will review the application at a public hearing. where the board will either approve or deny the annexation request. In 2000, the California State Legislature significantly changed LAFCO policy as part of the Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. As part of this new policy, the state legislature added a requirement for cities to annex county islands and removing LAFCO's discretion. Ventura LAFCO adopted their island annexation policy in 2003 and requires when cities annex sites larger than 40 acres, the islands be annexed as well. The island annexation application will be submitted to LAFCO after the North Canyon Ranch annexation is approved.

Elizabeth, sorry for interrupting. We appear to have technical difficulties with regard to the live stream. Is that accurate?

We'll take a brief pause.

If we could take a 10-minute pause to see if we can rectify that. I apologize for interrupting.

Mm.

Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I think we have a granicus live stream. It appears there's a technical difficulty with YouTube itself. As long as we have a live feed through the city's website, we're good to move forward. It's obviously up to the commission if you want to move forward. My suggestion would be to back up for five minutes in your presentation and repeat that part of it so that at least we have that going out. But I'm happy to answer any questions or questions. Okay, great.

So you're clear to move forward if you so desire. Yeah, I concur. Shall we back up five minutes in that presentation just to make sure that we're covered?

Yeah, I'm going to pick up where we start with the annexation. Okay. Does that sound good?

Yeah, annexation. That's a good break point.

Okay.

Yeah, we still need our video feed on the screens here. Okay. All right, can we get our screens back up here at the dais? They're still in recess. The good news is the air conditioning's working, right? Okay, it looks like the reboot has occurred, so we're going to go ahead and pick this back up at the annexation. Slide.

Lauren just said it's not showing up on Granicus.

Yeah, we got a reboot up here.

Okay. Ready?

Okay, looks like we're going to restart. We're going to kick it back to the slide with the annexation and go forward from there. Thank you all.

Excellent. Okay. Okay. To develop the North Canyon Ranch site, the property and seven of the county islands must be annexed into the city limits by Ventura LAFCO. Annexation of the North Canyon site is required because the site is larger than 40 acres, and by annexing North Canyon's ranch, LAFCO policy also requires annexation of seven of the nine county islands. The acronym LAFCO stands for Local Area Formation Commission, local agency formation commission, and is a state agency that has a sole authority over changes to city boundaries and special districts. LAFCOs discourage sprawl and encourage orderly development and establish the sphere of influence for each city or agency. To initiate the annexation of North Canyon Ranch, the city council must first recommend the city file an application with LAFCO. Next, the city will formally apply for annexation of the North Canyon Ranch project site and then LAFCO will then review the application and at a public hearing, the board will either approve or deny the annexation request. In 2000, the California State Legislature significantly changed LAFCO policy as part of the Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. As part of this new policy, the state legislature added a requirement for cities to annex county islands and removed LAFCO's discretion Ventura LAFCO adopted their island annexation policy in 2003 and requires when cities annex sites larger than 40 acres, the islands be annexed as well. The island annexation application will be submitted to LAFCO after the North Canyon Ranch annexation is approved. This map shows the location of the seven county islands to be annexed. County islands six and nine are crossed out and are not part of this application due to their size. In the future, these county islands six and nine could seek annexation individually for future development projects. A total of 437 lots will be annexed with a total area of approximately 302 acres. Existing uses of the annexation areas are primarily single family residential. Unincorporated County Island properties are pre-zoned in anticipation of being annexed into the city. County Island 8, the Sinaloa Lake area, however, was not pre-zoned previously. The pre-zoning considers the existing activities of the site that are both residential and open space, as well as animal keeping activities. Island 8 will be pre-zoned to residential estate with farm animal overlay. residential very low, residential low, and open space. The farm animal overlay will continue to allow the animal raising activities allowed by the county. After the county islands are annexed into the city, residents will experience some changes to the services they currently receive. Law enforcement will transfer from Ventura County Sheriff's Department to Simi Valley Police Department. building permits will be reviewed and issued by the city of simi valley and code enforcement will be transferred to the city of simi valley as well however some services won't change ventura county fire department will continue to respond to calls waterworks district 8 will continue to provide water If your property is currently on septic, the city will not require you to connect to city sewer until there is a health safety issue or a resident builds a new single family residence, SB9 unit, or an ADU. Pre-existing permitted uses allowed by the county will continue to be allowed, including animal keeping. The project was continued in 2025 because of concerns related to the financial impacts of annexing the county islands into the city. A fiscal impact analysis was prepared for the annexation and found without the North Canyon Ranch development, the county islands will generate an annual deficit of $142,000. This will eventually be offset by North Canyon Ranch development, which will generate an annual surplus of $1,229 per residence. The city and developer have negotiated a development agreement to offset the deficit. The development agreement offsetting the deficit generated by the island annexation with payment of $141,884 annually once North Canes is annexed. annexed until North Canyons is fully developed. The developer will also provide public benefits including the extension of Falcon Street, constructing a fire access road, dedicating land for public trails, and paying $150,000 each to the public arts program and the library building improvements. At the January 22nd Planning Commission meeting, the public comments asked the following questions. As we discussed, LAFCO policy requires island annexation of North Canyon Ranch. Annexation is approved. And a fiscal impact analysis was prepared to study the financial impacts of island annexation. The annexed homes will not count towards the city's RHNA. Water for the project will be supplied by Water Works District 8, who have stated that 5.6% of the city's water surplus will be used by the development. The EIR identified potential bus stops on Falcon Street, which will be further studied and determined if necessary as the project progresses. No traffic calming devices will be installed on Milestone Avenue in response to North Canyon Ranch development. And Milestone Avenue is a public street, and in order to install gates, the streets would have to be abandoned and privatized. An EIR was prepared for the project which studied both the North Canyon Ranch and the island annexation. The purpose of an EIR is to disclose the potential environmental impacts of the project, all feasible mitigation measures that could reduce or eliminate those impacts, and suggest and investigate alternatives to the project which may be environmentally superior to the project as proposed. The city determined the project may have a significant impact on the environment and prepared an EIR. Mitigation measures are provided to lessen the impacts, to lessen significant and are contained in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Our CEQA consultant Laura Kaufman is here tonight to answer questions regarding the EIR process and mitigation measures. To approve the North Canyon Ranch project, findings must be made that the project is consistent with the general plan and Simi Valley Municipal Code. There are no impacts to the public health, safety, or welfare. The project is consistent with the residential design guidelines, subdivision map act, and hillside performance standards. If the planning commission chooses to deny the project tonight, they must find the project is inconsistent with the findings contained in the resolution. And staff recommends the Planning Commission make a recommendation of approval to the City Council of the Annexation General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Plan Development Permit, Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and EIR, and the County Island Annexation and Pre-Zone. And this concludes my presentation and staff's available for questions.

Any Commissioner, questions of staff?

I'm going to start. Can we explain a little bit more what would be the financial impact on the city if the project was to be approved, and if the developer doesn't start developing the project in a timely manner, but we already are in the process of annexing the unincorporated?

So the fiscal impact analysis that's attached to the DA, it identified that the island annexations will cost the city $142,000. And based upon that number, the DA was negotiated requiring that Until North Canyon Ranch is fully developed, the developer will be paying money into the city funds to offset that deficit incurred by annexing the islands.

So what would be the timeline for the annexations? How would that happen if we were to approve this, if the city council was to approve?

What the timeline would be to island annexation? Based upon the timeline with LAFCO, the North Canyon Ranch process could take approximately over a year. And then there's ways to extend it. There's time extensions that can be granted before they have to annex the island annexations. It could be approximately five years before we annex the islands.

Thank you. And if we were, I'm not saying that that's going to happen, but if we were to have a Runkle Canyon situation, what would be the long-term effects to the city?

Do you want to define the Runkle Canyon situation?

Oh, yes. Yes, that is a 20-year delay with many extensions, and the project was not being finished. I asked a question. Can you help answer that question?

Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. So this is a very different situation than a project that happened 20 years ago. What we've built into the development agreement and the developers agreed to is to ensure that the city is protected and that we don't have a similar situation. The overall term of the DA is 15 years. Once building permits start getting issued, there's a six-month period within which a building actually has to commence after those building permits are issued. And failure to do so is a material breach of the actual development agreement, which means that's going to be in front of the city council for review at that point. With regard to the financial aspects of things, the developer has agreed to provide a surety, meaning a bond or letter of credit, some other form of surety to make sure that the annexation happens in a timely manner. I'll say with regard to annexation in a timely manner, sorry, I usually look at this way, but the LAFCO is actually required by state law to process the annexation application very quickly. This is a application process, annexation process, whereby the city is actually asking for the annexation, which means that under state law, LAFCO waives the protest proceedings, has to ministerially approve the project, and there are very few opportunities to stop the process for annexation under these circumstances. All of this to say that we took a lot of time to negotiate the impact fee that's been described by staff and on your PowerPoint, and also it's built into the development agreement. So from a legal standpoint, I don't think that the concerns that have been raised about other projects within the city will be replicated. And certainly I know that the city council is well aware of other issues with other developments. So I don't think that that is something that will happen again.

Yeah, thank you. I was not saying it's going to happen. I was just making sure that we have a plan in place.

Yes, and this development agreement is very different than any others that have come before either the Planning Commission for recommendations to the City Council or for the City Council itself to consider.

I have more questions, but if somebody else wants to.

Go ahead.

I do want to bring up the tough traffic question. So my question, and I did ask it before, if this development was to be happening at the same time as the Lost Canyon development, what would be the traffic impact on that area? Thank you.

We'll bring up Justin Link, principal traffic engineer.

I apologize. Is there anybody coming after me who has to go over this?

Good evening, Commissioners.

That is a tricky question to answer because either the traffic study or our traffic model doesn't necessarily take into account conflicting Construction it is possible. I suppose that we can limit construction traffic to certain areas So if North canyons were to progress at the same time that we would limit construction traffic to say first Street as opposed to using erringer I don't suspect that there's going to be a lot of construction traffic using erringer from lost canyons because of the distance between them and So there shouldn't be too much interactivity. Again, that's pure speculation on my part, but there would be the potential. I would think that we could figure out a way with a developer to place the construction traffic closer to where it needs to go.

Thank you. Does anybody else have traffic questions?

No. Thank you.

You go ahead. You go ahead for a little bit.

I have no questions for staff at this time. Colson? No. Ma'am? No, sir.

OK. That being said, then, we will open the public testimony portion of the hearing. And for that, would the applicant like to present the project?

No apology necessary.

Yes, he's safe.

So we have Glen and, Glen and Susie are presenting, okay.

Chair Kennedy, I'll be presenting and then as we need to, if there are questions that I can't answer, we'll bring up the appropriate folks.

Thank you, Glenn.

So, Chair Kennedy and members of the Commission, thank you very much for the time to present on this, what I believe is a beautiful project coming to Simi Valley. And we're grateful to be back in front of you, I think now for the sixth time since 2025? which I'm not sure is a record, but could be. And we want to thank the staff. City staff has done a great job working with us to develop the development agreement, to make sure the fiscal impacts are addressed in this project, and to bring a beautiful project here back to Simi Valley. As you know, that tonight's vote is about the merits of this project. not about the LAFCO process, but it's hard to separate the two because LAFCO and state law has interconnected those as staff has pointed out. So we wanted to get into a few things about the project itself. Oops, let me see, one more ahead. The North County, I'm sorry, the North Canyon Ranch solves what LAFCO has been dealing with for the last 25 years. That is to address the county islands. As some of you know, I'm owner of a house in one of the islands. I have a house on Avenida Simi right behind the Simi Valley Hospital with a 60-year-old septic tank, just to say. The way this project has been put together, it addresses the financial shortfalls that the city was anticipating by a LAFCO-directed annexation of the islands. It actually addresses the problem so well that it creates a surplus, additional monies for the city to be able to support the rest of the city operations after the project is fully built out. Once the project is built out, it's anticipated that there'll be over $100,000 of additional money going back to the city. The project history, the project has always been intended to be developed, this piece of land. It is in the city's general plan and it is in the city's sphere of influence. The zoning that was previously put on it actually allows for around 260 homes and we're building 207 homes. which is a lighter density, and we're providing a mix of houses from 1,900 square feet up to 3,400 square feet, as I'm remembering my specific details, and lot sizes up into the 15,000 and 5,000 range. So the EIR has been completed and with an extensive analysis led by the city and their staff, their consultant, Envicon, and it found that no significant issues arose, that none of the city's services or infrastructure has to be upsized to meet the needs of this project, which is important because that means the city had already planned on this project in the future and is meeting those future needs. We actually also participated in the community outreach. We went, because this project straddles two different neighborhood councils, Council 1 and 3, we went before both of those and received a support from both of those neighborhood councils. And as you know, from when the town center was built, some of the dirt was moved up to this project and they had created some super pads and those pads were certified by the city for this development. I want to thank the staff because they went through all the benefits of this project. But as you can see, the project overall size is 160 acres. We're building on 39% of that. The project itself offers a wide variety of housing. And 40% of the site will be left undisturbed and will be used for conservation. The project is gonna, the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District's also gonna be receiving the open space along with some trails. And then in addition to that, a fire access road so that if a fire does happen in the backside, they'll be accessed by the fire department, which conveniently is just on the corner of the street that's gonna be connected. And so we think that's a plus for everybody, including these residents and people that live down on First Street. So the fire protection and the connectivity benefits that we've just talked about do connect and fulfill the city's desired goal to connect First Street to Falcon and to connect the First Street area to the Big Sky area. If something were to happen at the freeway on Erringer and for some reason Erringer was blocked, it would allow the Big Sky residents an additional way out, not just on Tapple Canyon, which is gonna be receiving some nice road improvements in the future. Those road improvements are already underway, but also right here off of First Street. There is, again, the fire fuel modifications that are going in because of the new state law, and this being in a high fire zone creates that 200-foot buffer, which helps everybody, including the Big Sky area. But on top of that, all of these houses, including the multifamily houses, will be sprinkler. They'll all have fire sprinklers in them. A few other benefits, there'll be $8.2 million paid to the city and the school district based on impact fees. The direct financial contribution of $150,000 for the public arts and for the library building fund. And a surplus to the city even after the annexation takes place. So I will wrap it up there and be happy to answer any questions that you might have. And if I can't do it, I've got a good team back here that can.

All right, any questions of the applicant? Yeah, I'm happy to answer his question.

Have you submitted a speaker card, sir?

I'm sorry, did you just submit a speaker card? Yes. Okay. And I'm happy to answer his question.

We'll get to it in the right order here. Thank you. Do we have any questions of the applicant?

I just have one question. And Mr. Becerra, how far along are you in the process? Have you talked to the neighboring property owner about the possibility of possibly not having the retaining wall or modifying the retaining wall in some way?

Yeah, the property owner, our property owner, and the adjoining property owner have been discussing an easement for, I think it's been 10 years now. quite a long time. We would love that because even though it would cost us money to buy that easement, to build that wall would be quite expensive. Those walls are not uncommon. They happen all the time. The way we're designing it, City staff with Brent seminar summer and you know and the other staff members have worked for years to develop What's being proposed now because we haven't been able to move that That along that process with the adjoining property owner, but you are still talking to him is what I mean. Yes, okay.

Thank you Any other commissioners

I guess I got one. So the financial impact or the benefit of the city, I thought one of the slides that you just ended with said 250, but a prior slide, if I remember correctly, said 120?

Yeah, well, the reason, that's the difference between the amount of money that, the amount of excess cash that our project will provide to the city minus what it'll cost the city. So it's 250 total, but when you separate out the cost of the annexation, then it drops it down to 112.

Perfect, thank you.

I have a question. Sure. How do you envision multifamily? If you can describe it. Are there townhomes, are there fourplexes, duplexes?

He needs to speak into the microphone.

Yeah. Thank you. I'm sorry. They're two-story, they're townhomes, and everything that we're proposing up is there is for sale. And just to address the question, the reason that I said that it's lower density, it's lower, it's less housing than was previously expected. you know, than they previously thought could go up there. You know, the zoning allows for roughly 260 housing units, and we're only proposing 207. So when I say lower density, I don't mean one acre lots. I mean less housing than could go up there.

I have one more that connects to that. I know it's early in the process, but are you leaning more towards the senior or affordable? One of the things is for multifamily, it's 25% affordable or 100% senior.

We're leaning towards senior. Thank you.

Any more questions?

And we're not going anywhere, so after the residents have a chance to speak, we're happy to come back up and address any of those questions that can come up afterwards.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, so now we have speaker cards, and the first one is Mary Eral, E-R-A-L, who does not wish to speak, who's in opposition. And then in order of speaker cards here is Emily, is it Walker? Walker, Emily, thank you.

Emily Walker, president, North Hills Homeowners Association. There are many reasons why the North Canyon Ranch project should be denied. We in the North Hills Homeowners Association adamantly oppose the North Canyon Ranch project and the proposed annexation of county islands. If built, the North Canyon Ranch project will be a major encroachment into wildlife areas. More invasion into wildlife areas cause more wild animals to invade areas of human habitation. As there will be building in the hills with the North Canyon Ranch project, there will be increased risk of fire danger. Southern California is prone to wildfires, and the risk for wildfires in the hills is greatly increased. And this area in the hills is a high-risk fire area. It takes a tremendous amount of water to build anything, especially a development of such a massive size as the North Canyon Ranch project. Also, once the development is completed, the people who will live in the development will use water. Currently, there is way too much traffic in Simi Valley. This development will increase traffic considerably. Many people live in Simi Valley to escape the urban sprawl of other areas. They want to live in an area with less traffic, less building, less density, and in general, a less hectic lifestyle. If approved, the North Canyon Ranch project will create more congestion and will add to urban sprawl. Residents of the county islands want to remain unincorporated, retaining their county status. They want to remain semi-rural with large lots and animal keeping. They do not want to lose the animal overlay. If annexed into the city there will be more and stricter rules and regulations. Also, there will be higher property taxes and other taxes will be higher. Zoning may change and some permits will cost more in the city. For example, a permit to install a new gas furnace costs $150 more in the city than in the county. Also, trash collection is more expensive in the city than in the county. In conclusion, please reject the North Canyon Ranch project and the proposed annexation of the county islands. These are very bad ideas.

Thank you. Next speaker is Annette Cheney.

I'm Annette Cheney, and I live in the Sinaloa Lake area. That would be, I believe, eight. I'm neither a lawyer nor a real estate agent, so I can just talk in general. My house was built by my husband in the early 60s. It took him seven years without any kind of a bank loan. He did a wonderful job, and they all passed everything that he did. I would like to continue to live there, but what I see is eventually going to happen with the annexation. And they say we can still have our farm animals. That's not going to continue, I know, once it becomes city. The rules are going to change. Maybe not for me, but when I do go to sell or my children go to sell, we won't be able to have the variety. We'll have the three dogs and three cats, and that will be it. The other thing is, you said that about sewers and things like that, that that would not be changed. I know it will be. We do not have sidewalks or streetlights or sewer. And I can see that happening, whether we have to pay directly or our taxes go way up to pay for it. It would be wonderful if we had some kind of paper that was legitimate, that would stay in force forever, that we could continue to have the animals, not have those other amenities. I like the trash service that we have. It is cheaper than waste management. I don't want to go back to that. My husband passed two years ago. My income is now half of what it used to be. What I'm doing is struggling to stay there, and I can see this is going to make it more difficult in the end. One other question. The development at the end of Erringer, I think it was not Erringer, Sequoia. I have friends that live up in that neighborhood, and they said during that time there was so much dust, some of the people got very sick. This is at Our end, and I know the way the winds blow. How are they going to do that so we aren't going to have the dust flying all over, which includes that fungus that you get in your lungs. I forget what it's called. But I'm 87, so I'm not going to remember everything. But I don't know what somebody said. Am I done? Can I keep talking? Okay. So anyway, this is scary for me and a number of my other neighbors who are old or as old as me. And I don't see any of them here. It was a struggle for me to get here, but I needed to come. I would like to save our area around Sinaloa Lake. and live the way we've always lived. It's just beautiful. I lived over in the San Fernando Valley years ago, and again, city, and there were all these restrictions. So we've enjoyed all these years with our grandchildren and all the animals that we've had. I would like that to continue, not just grandfathered in for me, but somehow, if you are if we do have to have that, that we can still have a lot of those same amenities without the fancy stuff on the side that's going to cost us a fortune. I think I'm done, and I really liked what this first lady said, Mrs. Walker. I can't remember the name already, but thank you. I wish I could say more, but I didn't write anything down.

Thank you.

The next speaker we have is David Hardy.

And here I am. I knew instantly what he was talking about with density. But to me, density is the number of cars that come down township and swing down reservoir and just make mass. So that's what I consider to be density. Anyway. John Tolson, Commissioner Tolson, I heard you say Becerra as you go on your Zoom call. What was his position on the Zoom call? Who does he represent?

I'm right here. I'm with the builder.

Oh, there you are. Oh, that's you. It's me. You've got more gray hair. And I got shorter. Anyway, the young lady did a wonderful job reading off the statistics, and I'm wondering where can I find the financial statistics that were presented on the slides? So somebody tell me where I can find them? Because I haven't seen them anymore. Yeah, we'll answer those questions for you. Oh, okay, okay. So she stated that, it's hard for me to read this.

Yes?

The commissions are discouraging urban sprawl. That's where she read that. But continuing on, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands. I don't think this does that in very good stead, frankly. If you told me that we were trying to do something for the town center and build a customer base for them, then I'd understand that. But this doesn't do it. And Annexation can be modified. We all read this, I'm sure. And it can be changed. And you as a Planning Commission have the right to make changes to it or suggestions for it. And you can do that. And the City Commission, I'm sorry, the City Council, they can do that too. The only one who can't do it in the room is me and the other neighbors. We can't do that. but we can lobby for it to be done because it could be some changes because you're only, you're annexing seven of the nine islands. So that tells you that you can make changes to it. And frankly, none of my neighbors want to be in the city. And I can tell you, yeah, they've mentioned the trash. My trash is probably one third the expense that it was when it was in the city. And that's a big difference going from like $85 to $25. Oops. Paint it white, then I can see it. And then do yourself, do us all a favor, drive down Township, look for the center of the road. And then as you make the swing down Reservoir, look at the difference, okay? On Township, you have a hard time finding the center of the road in spots because it's not marked. You come down Reservoir, the road is black, there's yellow markers here and there and everywhere, and it's much easier to traverse. And you just need to consider those things because they're important to us. And I've been there 46 years paying taxes. Why don't I have a say in what's going on? A vote of some sort. So I don't know. And I'm sure all these other people are asking the same question. And you can tell for people to get out in 103 degree heat and come to a meeting, it must be important to them. So anyway, I still don't know what your position is. Okay, I'm done. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, the next speaker is Lana Zuccoffi. Zuccoffi, got it. Thank you.

That came out really great because Dave is my neighbor. Literally, my next friend. Oh, there you are.

Hi, Dave. Here, give them these letters. Can I pass these on? Oh, no, they're just in your speech, at the end of your speech. Oh. I got some letters for you.

You want me to read them? Huh? You want me to read them?

No. Oh, just give it to them? Yeah.

So I'm going to make this short and sweet. My name is Lana Zukofsky. I purchased my house because it was unincorporated back in 2020. And that was one of my main reasons for purchasing that property. I moved out of the city of Los Angeles in the Valley. Horrible, horrible experience. And when we moved into the unincorporated part of Simi Valley, It was safe, it was calm, it was quiet. Yeah, we don't have street lights, we don't have sidewalks, but you know what? We have peace of mind, we don't have a lot of commotion, we don't have to deal with, excuse me, the BS of most of my friends that live in the city of Simi Valley. So I'm opposed, I'm against this. I also wanna ask you guys, what benefit will us as residents of the islands get from annexation besides an increase in taxes, besides having to change a bunch of stuff on our properties because now it's gonna be under city instead of Ventura County. Ventura County is much more lenient. and much more easier to deal with. So I'm not happy about that. I'd like to know from you guys what, besides those two things that I mentioned, what benefit I'm going to get from being a city member. Also, I want to know what happens to the residents in the islands if the project doesn't get built. So you guys annex our properties, which I see as a city grab. And all of a sudden, stuff happens, and the project doesn't go forward. But we're still annexed. Okay, and the other thing is we do not have enough power in the city of Simi Valley. We all know power outages, brownouts, so now you're talking about putting in another 2,000 homes. Where are we gonna get this electricity from? 2,000 homes, a little more?

And how many multi?

And the multifamilies? Anyway, where are we going to get the power for all of this? I mean, I'm sure if you all live in city, you've all experienced brownouts, blackouts, power outages. My friends off of Cooner a couple of Thanksgivings ago had no power for four days. Okay, so now we're putting in all of these new people, plus the noise from the construction. The roads got damaged from all the trucks going to the dump because of the fires. So now we're gonna damage our roads some more. We're gonna cause some more traffic. We're gonna ruin our freeways. We're gonna... make it horribly impossible to get up to the dog park, which I usually frequent. So I'm not happy about that. Also, what I want to say is you guys, this is number four on the other side of the map. Is the city required to request annexation of unincorporated islands? LAFCO law does not require a city to request the annexation of unincorporated islands. The city is free to make that choice. So you guys make that choice, so please rescind that choice. We do not want to be annexed. I do not want to be a part of Simi Valley, okay, because you do not want to know how I vote, okay? So all I have to say is I believe that this is a city grab for our properties, and I oppose it. Stop the annexation. You asked for it. Rescind the application and leave us the heck alone.

And I believe our last speaker card is Vern Oath. There we go.

Hi, that's Vern Orth. Island 8. Island 8. Personally, I think this agreement is between the developer and the city of Simi. I don't really like seeing more open space getting paved over. My big complaint is this annexation thing of the other islands. Is our LAFCO rep here today? At the last meeting, we really had to pin him down. He admitted, that's not part of the code. That's their policy. And if you have the California Code 56375, it states LAFCO may not mandate or require annexation. And it's up to the residents of that island to request that. So we keep hearing this, it's required, it's mandated, we have to do this. And that's simply not true. So that's all I got to say.

Thank you. OK, are there any comments from staff regarding statements made during the public hearing? And deputy city planner as well?

Do you want to start? You want me to start?

I'll start with Elizabeth. OK, Elizabeth.

So starting with Emily Walker, she made comments about the wildfires. Just as a note, this project will continue to be reviewed by the Ventura County Fire Department. They have done a draft preliminary review and approval of the, oh my gosh, the board just escaped me. The fuel modification plan, thank you. This is the acceptable fuel modification plan. But as we move forward with building permits, they're going to continue reviewing this to ensure that it complies with current rules. There were questions about water. Ventura City Water Works District 8 has reviewed it. This uses only 5% of the surplus water supply that we have, so there's water available. She had concerns about losing the animal overlay. Staff has studied the zoning maps to ensure that the animal overlays that are allowed by the county continue upon annexation into the city. Island 8, we did update to include the animal overlay with the pre-zone. Ms. Chaney, she has concerns about septic, continuing with the animals, and the dust mitigation. So city staff has identified that we're gonna continue to allow the septic systems. We're not gonna force connection to the sewer upon annexation. Ronco, she had concerns about the dust. The mitigation measures from the EIR and the air quality section do require that there be dust mitigation during construction. Normally they put silt fencing up on the fences to try to keep the dust contained within the property as well as having water trucks to water it down, especially in high wind events. Mr. Hardy, he has questions about where to find the fiscal impact analysis. That is attached to the development agreement, which is included in tonight's staff report packet. It's an exhibit to it. I believe it's exhibit B.

The report is posted on the website. It's like an 800-page report.

He also made comments at the Planning Commission City Council have the ability to change the island annexation policy that policy is state law It's not a policy that that the city has Regulations has the ability to regulate that state law and then it's policy adopted by LAFCO and Ms. Zukowski, she had questions and concerns about the electricity. Our city manager's office works with Edison to ensure that our projects are on Edison's map. And it's anticipated that we're going to be looking for electricity. She also said that there's going to be 2,000 homes. That's untrue. There's 207, 157 single-family homes, 50 multifamily homes. And then Mr. Orth made the comment that Kai told them it's not code to annex islands, it's policy. It's a policy, it's contained in the state, in the 2000 bill, LAFCO adopted their policy, And it's not a requirement that the city today file an application just to annex the islands. The reason why we're annexing the islands is because we have the North Canyon development. And LAFCO's policy is if you're going to take North Canyons, you have to also apply and take the islands. And that's why we're here tonight with the island annexation.

That's a complete contrast to what this paper says, number four, on the other side of the map.

Complete contrast.

All right, let's hold the comments. Could you do a little more detail, Elizabeth, on how the 2000 clarification changed the document that this lady's talking about here?

Right, so the 2000 state law, the city legislature, their purpose behind it was to make sure that underserved county islands were annexed into the cities. However, it's a blanket statement. It covers all county islands. It doesn't focus on underserved. Our county islands aren't necessarily underserved. but they are islands that don't reserve services from the city. I have the FAQ from LAFCO here. Yeah, they say law does not require city to request the annexation of unincorporated islands, though city is free to make such a request to LAFCO at any time. And I think that statement is meaning that the city does not have to file an independent application to LAFCO for the island annexation.

I'm sorry, thank you.

The city doesn't have to make an independent island annexation request. The island annexations are being included with the annexation because we're annexing North Canyon Ranch. And it exceeds the 40 acres in size. And LAFCO policy says, city, if you annex North Canyon Ranch, If you request to annex North Canyon Ranch and it's approved, in order to record it, city must file application to annex the islands.

So in that, it was brought up that there's two islands that aren't being annexed. Correct.

Islands six and nine.

Yeah. And the exception for those?

They don't meet LAFCO definition of being a island that needs to be annexed. They're not, they use the word they're not developed, meaning that island six, which is the triangle shaped island just north of us here, it only has a single family residence on it. It's not fully developed to its full potential. And then island nine, is a vacant lot off of Cunard, and it's completely undeveloped. So they don't meet the definition of LAFCO to require the island annexation.

Thank you for that clarification. Would the applicant at this time like to respond?

We're going to ask Elaine Freeman to address some more of the LAFCO issue. She's pretty well versed in this area.

Yes, Elaine Freeman. I'm a LAFCO. I was a LAFCO commissioner for 12 or 12 years. LAFCO actually formed in 1963, I believe. And it was amended when Herzberger was on the Senate creating the 40-acre process. is a state mandated agency. Each county in the state must have one. Its purpose is orderly development, preservation of agriculture. The commission does de-annexations, annexations, reorganizations. They also do a municipal service review every five years on all the agencies that are covered by LAFCO to make sure they're operating under the roles they're supposed to be operating under. This situation occurred when the amendment was made to state law. That clearly stated that the next annexation that occurred would require the bringing in of all islands with the exception of the 40 acres. So this is something that is state law. And I know there was a comment made that you or the city could change that law. No, it doesn't work that way because it is state law. So it would have to go through the state legislature, create a bill, get it through the process. And LAFCO has a commission statewide. The LAFCO organization, Cal-LAFCO, would look at the legislation and determine if it was a viable piece of legislation that Cal LAFCO would even support to change the law the way it is existing. So it is not a simple process. It's a statewide process. We just happen to be at this point of the legislation. And I know it's difficult. A LAFCO meets once a month. on a Wednesday, assuming there's actions that need to be taken. And it is a public hearing. And you will, the property owners will be notified or they should make sure that they watch the LAFCO agenda. But as a city, The city is actually pretty limited in their abilities of what they can do on the annexation since it is state law. And I want to make that really clear. It's a state law. And uncomfortable as that is. That is what the law is. And after being a commissioner for all those years, I can sympathize with people, but the whole point of LAFCO is orderly development and for areas to be served by the organization that is closer to them, which in this case is the city of Simi Valley. So if there's any questions on LAFCO, I'll be glad to answer them.

Can you tell us what state law that is?

I'm sorry, what?

What state law is that? What is the number?

It's known as the Cortese Knox-Hirschberg Rule. That's what you would look up. I believe it's referenced on the screen.

Yeah, it's in part of the presentation.

Yes. All the rules are in there. It's a rather extensive document. spells out everything that can occur within the boundaries. Are there any other questions?

Yeah, so just to summarize, so by bringing this project in, we've triggered the LAFCO annexation of the islands.

That is correct.

So we're in a binary situation is, right, we don't approve this project, we don't trigger LAFCO. But the next project.

But the next annexation you will. It's inevitable.

Right.

And there will be a next one.

Yes. Thank you.

I have a question, too.

There is no way for us to separate this. I know the developer would love that, too. But is there a way for us to separate that? No.

Thank you. And Commissioner Tolson, you're in the queue.

There was one of the public speakers asked, what happens if the project isn't built? Does the annexation still happen?

I would have to say that once the annexation is approved and becomes part of the city, it is part of the city. But the applicant has prepared all the legals, all the maps, everything that's required for LAFCO. That was a requirement of the developer, to get everything ready for LAFCO. And LAFCO is quite aware of this process going on. From my experience, I would doubt very much if someone would take it this far and then not build a project. Just a guess.

Just another clarification. So the LAFCO, this is the trigger for the LAFCO. And so both of these processes are running concurrently, right?

Correct.

Right. And they'll continue down that timeline concurrently. So one can't happen without the other. Right, the builder can't complete unless the annexation.

That is correct, they're required. And it's within the city's SOAR boundary, and so it has always been anticipated it would be brought into the city.

Okay, that clears that up for me, thank you.

You're welcome, any other questions?

So what about this development, just to be specific, puts it that it has to be incorporated in or the animals need to be incorporated in. Other developments have come into play in CME, but what makes this development the one that triggers LAFCO?

It's the first one since the last annexation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, any other comments that the applicant would like to respond to?

Well, yeah, I would say just a couple of things. One, you know, and what Elaine said about LAFCO, you know, and the state law with the Hertzberg bill and their policy to bring in these unincorporated islands, Simi and Camarillo are the only two communities that have these islands left. all the rest of them, Oxnard, Ventura, all of them have been, those issues of not having, or having these islands not incorporated in the cities has been remedied in all of the other cities over the last 25 years. And so this is, we can say that right now this is the, this project has triggered this, but if, let's say for some reason we didn't build this project, you've said no and we had to go away, LAFCO's goal and stated goal is to remedy this issue and bring these islands into the city as part of their orderly development. It's gonna happen at some point no matter what. And that's, I mean, they're driving this. The city isn't driving this, we're not driving this, LAFCO's driving it because they want those islands incorporated in the city because that makes sense for orderly development. Look, I was born in the house on Avenida in the island 59 years ago. And I'm proud to say I still own that house in the island. And for the 20 years that I served on the city council, my mom couldn't vote for me in any of the elections. So one of the questions was, what are the benefits that you get that you don't get now? Well, you get to come down here as a resident and now constituent. that no longer is a non-constituent in the city. And when the city makes you a promise, and I liked what the one woman, I think it was a lady who came up and said, put it in writing and commit to us that you won't take away our animal overlay, commit to us you won't make the sewer mandatory and those types of things. If you try to change it and you come down as a unincorporated island person, you really wanna be part of Simi. I mean, so you could be anywhere if you don't wanna be part of Simi Valley. And so, but if you're a constituent resident, then you can come back down and hold your city council accountable to the commitments that they've made. And so I think there's just a little different weight. A lot of the other issues I can't argue about. But I think the city has gone above and beyond to make sure that these residents, if they are incorporated, get to maintain the quality of life and the style of life that they've become accustomed. I know I watched my mom. My mom passed away four years ago. She didn't do a lot of landscaping in the house, but she kept her weeds mowed. She lived a very simple life out there, and she loved it. And she was part of the HOA that the lady came up and spoke from. It's a unique part of Simi Valley. And the lifestyle in those areas are unique. And I loved it growing up there. And maybe when I outgrow my two-story house and I can't climb stairs anymore, that's why I'm keeping that house. Because I might move back into that one story, 1900 square foot house that we built in 1964. Because it's a great house and it's a great area. But it is literally surrounded by the city of Simi Valley. And so I would leave it with that. This annexation was always meant to be, the pads were built, the city certified them, the road circulation element is looking to make those connections, and we're coming in under the amount of housing that could go there. It's a good project for this community. But I understand the residents' concerns. I will ask one question. It's my understanding, and I think the staff mentioned it, that it'll take about a year from the time this approval happens and city council approves it, the letter gets sent to LAFCO before our annexation of just our project site comes into the city. Then they said there's a five-year window that could be asked for with LAFCO to delay annexation of the islands for an additional five years, and my understanding that there's two one-year additions on top of that for a total of seven years, which would give the residents potentially eight more years from now before they would come into the city. Is that correct?

I don't know about those extensions. I heard that as well. The concurrent timeline of the annexation could extend five years. Right.

My understanding is we can request those extensions and allow those residents to have the security to know that their annexations won't be complete for roughly eight additional years. Right, but the city can request that. So the city can request that. My understanding is LAFCO has never denied those requests and so at least that would give these residents another, let's say eight years, seven, eight years to not worry while the city is putting those concerns in writing for them. So anyway, I'm gonna end there and I thank you for your time and your consideration tonight.

All right, thank you. Okay, at this time, if there are no further questions, we'll close the public testimony portion of the hearing. Are there any comments or questions from members of the Planning Commission at this time? I see John in the queue.

I got one question for staff, and just to clarify about the animal. overlay, is there a sunset clause on who would have what animals on these annexed areas moving forward?

So in terms of if they have animals in areas that do not have animal overlays pre-zoned? That is a point of island annexation that staff hasn't begun discussing yet. Similar to the public comment about having a list of what are we going to enforce and what are we going to grandfather in, that list also hasn't been worked on.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner Christman?

Thank you. I actually have the list of proposed zoning. It's number 10 on the staff report. Area 5 and Area 7 do not have any animal or farm animal overlay. And I don't know if those areas right now include. It's page number 10 in the staff report.

So staff did study county maps to see if they have animal overlays on them. Those two areas that you're seeing, they didn't have an animal overlay per county zoning. Island 8 that we're pre-zoning as part of this action, those residential estate lots have animal overlays on them with the county. So we're bringing those forward with this pre-zoning request to ensure that they continue to be allowed to have animals. My understanding of Commissioner Tolson's question was for those properties that have animals in them that don't currently have an animal overlay on them with the county and what's gonna happen to those animals.

Yeah, thank you. I also calculated the overall open space that is going to stay open. So it's 44%. I think you said around 44%. But then I added it all together with the slopes and drainage and landscaping and parks, and it's actually around 68%. So I'm pretty happy about all of the open space that is going to stay there. I'm going to let somebody else talk. I have more.

Okay, am I okay? A couple of people brought up costs and fees. Has city staff looked into, I'm assuming now the county is Athens Trash Service, where the city is Waste Management. Is there that much of a discrepancy in trash service fees between those two? Okay, okay. I'll see if staff has any answers first.

Sean, I don't know the cost of our trash services versus.

I don't have the exact numbers, Commissioner, but I did hear in a conversation that was at least $10 per month more expensive.

For the city?

For it. Waste management is at least $10 a month more than Athens, so it is an increase. It could be various situations. I don't have the exact numbers, but yeah, based on the audience reaction, it's very clear that the waste management is more. The commission could always recommend that the city council or that... the applicant or the city reach out to Waste Management to see if and when annexation does occur, if there's some sort of grace period for those islands, perhaps some sort of negotiated settlement just for those customers. There might be something, maybe a goodwill gesture, just a suggestion.

And the other part was somebody, one of the speakers brought up specifically a permit fee was $100-something more for the city than for the county. Again, any idea, validity of that? I'm assuming it's a true statement, but...

I'm assuming that we can... Again, we haven't studied the cost comparison between Ventura County building department permit fees versus City of Simi Valley building permit fees. That's something that we could study for City Council.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments? Questions? Questions?

Do you have more questions?

You guys are coming with yours. I'll come up with mine One of the things that says multifamily housing is that just higher density housing like townhomes or truly four plexes and multifamily the multifamily It would depend upon what the applicant proposes multifamily would cover attached units and

It's just it's not a traditional single-family detached house.

So mr. Becerra He had actually answered that question because I asked it was townhomes townhomes.

So no four plex I mean duplexes are fine because they're individually owned but four plexes any of those or no?

Four packs it's five acres and it comes down to ten ten units per acre Okay, so the density on the on the land that it's sitting on is quite low but it is four packs and there are 50 of them, but again, it's 10 units per acre.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Mine is more of a comment. I would encourage the city to delay the application of the annexation of the islands if we were to push this project forward, just for the sake of giving more time to the residents and also for the sake of our police department to be able to properly prepare for the annexation, because they will have to probably add more force to it.

Any other comments?

Questions?

Okay, at this time, may I please have a reading of the resolution?

Resolution number SVPC 11-2026, a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley recommending to the City Council approval of annexation ANX-0077, General Plan Amendment GPA-0073, zone change Z-S-0613, plan development permit PD-S-1054, tentative map TT-5658-A, and development agreement da-2026-0001 to annex and subdivide an approximately 160.32 acre site for a 207 unit residential development consisting of 157 single family residences 50 multi-family units, and open space located between the northern terminus of First Street and the intersection of Erringer Road and Falcon Street, and annexation of county island properties ANX-2024-0001, associated pre-zonings Z-S-2024-0005, and adopt an environmental impact report and mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Okay, the chair will now entertain a motion.

I move to adopt a resolution recommending to the city council approval of ANX007, GPA0073, ZS0613, BDS1054, TT5658A, DA-2026-0001, ANX-2024-0001, and ZS-2024-0005, and the Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program.

Would you like to add recommendations to the Council on that as well?

Yes, the recommendations were to delay the annexation as much as possible within what is allowed of the rest of the island.

That sounds about right.

Okay. And to investigate the ability to negotiate with waste management and the permits for future building. Is that correct?

Yeah, that works for me.

Anything else?

I think you got the big items there. Thank you.

I second.

We have a second. I move, okay, here we go. We now have a call for the vote.

The vote passes unanimously.

Okay, there is no appeal period for the annexation general plan amendment pre-zone plan development permit Tentative map and development agreement and the items will proceed to the City Council with the Planning Commission's recommendations Okay, we're now at Proceed to the next item, which is new business. And at this time, under 11, there are no new business items. Oral communications and reports. Does staff have anything to report?

Yes, Chairperson Kennedy, members of the Commission, and just want to state that, again, for the audience, the City Council hearing has not yet been scheduled. So please keep an eye on the City Council website. You can reach out to staff, Elizabeth, myself, as far as an update to scheduling of that item. So we can go through this process at the City Council level. So that'll be our next step. And staff has no other comments on any other items.

Any comments from staff? Do any commissioners have anything to report?

I just want to thank Planning Commissioner from Thousand Oaks for the book.

And I'd like to thank all the participants tonight. I know this is educational for a lot of us with the LAFCO stuff, so thank you for participating in this process. Now we're on to Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board. Does staff have anything to report?

No items tonight.

A Tree Advisory Board. Does staff have anything to report?

No items tonight.

All right. This concludes the meeting of August 26, 2026. The next scheduled meeting will be September 16, 2026. Meeting is adjourned.