16224.4:11435576.1
Valley, California as a condition to granting entitlements for the development of the improvements on Parcel 1, provided, Grantee shall be responsible to maintain such landscaping and irrigation devices at all times at its sole cost and expense, notwithstanding any alternative allocation of Maintenance Expenses … (c) to maintain any encroachments of improvements from Parcel 1 onto the Access Easement as existing on the date hereof, including, without limitation, any parking spaces or parking areas.”
At the risk of stating the obvious, the purpose of this Amendment was to specify certain rights included in Parcel 1’s use and enjoyment of the Easement.
I understand that the owners of Parcel C have raised two challenges to the rights granted to Parcel 1 in the First Amendment. First, they have asserted that the term “maintain” in Paragraph 3(c) is limited to “upkeep along with repair and replacement .” That limitation is inconsistent with the recognized and accepted meaning of the word “maintain.” For example, the Cambridge Dictionary defines maintain as: “to continue to have; to keep in existence, or not allow to become less (emphasis added).” The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines maintain as “to keep in an existing state (as of repair, efficiency, or validity), preserve from failure or decline (emphasis added).1 The term “maintain” in the Easement Amendment also is categorized as a “right” for the benefit of Parcel 1, not an obligation to conduct repairs, as would be the case if the sole definition of maintain was upkeep, repair, and replacement.
Second, the owners of Parcel C have taken the position that the only right Paragraph 3(c) gives to Parcel 1 is the “mere permission at will for such encroachments to remain, and permission for the owners of Parcel 1 to use such encroachments at that time. This takes the form of simple permission or, at most, an implied license revocable at will by the owners of Parcel C.” We fail to see any language in Paragraph 3(c) that can possibly be interpreted as a license. First, Paragraph 3(c) specifically states that the owner of Parcel 1 has the following rights “with respect to the use of the Access Easement” , which demonstrates that the School District and Cochran Properties intended the rights granted to be included as part of Parcel 1’s use and enjoyment of the Easement area, not as a separate personal license to Cochran Properties.
Second, there is absolutely no language in Paragraph 3(c) to support the position that the owner of Parcel C retained the right to revoke Parcel 1’s uses specified therein at any time or at all. Most telling, the Paragraph does not ever say nor even imply that the owner of Parcel C can revoke the rights at will. Instead, the Paragraph specifically states that the rights are “with respect to the use of the Access Easement” and for the benefit of Parcel 1 and all future owners. As such, the rights are, as part of the Easement, protectable, irrevocable, and compensable. (See: Miller & Starr; 6
1 The terms of the easement must be understood according to their ordinary and popular meaning.
Civ. Code § 1644.
326
Sean Gibson
January 14, 2025
16224.4:11435576.1
CAL. REAL EST. § 15:2 (4th ed.) Indeed, how can the rights be for the benefit of all future owners of Parcel 1 if the owner of Parcel C can revoke them at any time? The position is not legally supportable.
Cochran Properties has a recorded easement granting to it the right to maintain landscaping and encroachments of improvements, including parking spaces, onto the Access Easement as they existed as of the date the Easement Amendment was recorded, November 6, 2017. The owners of Parcel C have “the right to use the easement as long as the use does not interfere with or impede the superior right of enjoyment of the easement owner. ” Miller & Starr, 6 Cal. Real Est. § 15:65 (4th ed.).
The proposed development plans submitted to the City of Simi Valley by the owner of Parcel C calls for the removal of a number of parking spaces and a number of trees and other landscaping currently maintained by Cochran Properties in the Easement area. That removal clearly would substantially interfere with Cochran Properties’ right to such parking and landscaping in the Easement area and therefore is prohibited by the Easement Agreement and by law.
Nothing contained in this letter is intended to nor shall constitute a waiver of any claims, rights or remedies that Cochran Properties has or may have arising with respect to the Easement or under California law, and all such claims, rights and remedies are hereby expressly reserved. No acts nor failures to act by Cochran Properties shall be deemed a waiver of any right to exercise in full all of its rights and remedies available with respect to the Easement and under California law as the result of any interference with such rights under the Easement Agreement.
I urge the City of Simi Valley to respect Cochran Properties’ rights under the Easement and refuse to further consider any plans that substantially interfere with those rights.
Sincerely,
Pooja S. Nair
CC Debra James ([email protected])
Zarui Chaparyan ([email protected])
327
16224.4:11440429.1
9401 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2974
[email protected]
PH: 310.281.6320
FX: 310.859.2325
File: 16224.4
January 20, 2025
VIA E-MAIL
Algeria R. Ford
City Attorney
City of Simi Valley
Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP
1770 Iowa Ave, Ste 240
Riverside, CA 92507-2479
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: January 22, 2025 Planning Commission Hearing- Agenda Item 12.A.2- CUP-S-2023- 0011
Dear Mr. Ford
This firm represents Cochran Properties and I am writing on its behalf regarding our client’s opposition to Conditional Use Permit CUP -S-2023-0011, which directly impedes my client’s easement rights as the owner of Parcel 1, under a recorded easement over Parcel C (the “Easement”). The Easement originally was granted under an Easement and Agreement of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions recorded on April 12, 1988 (“Easement Agreement”) as follows:
“Grantor hereby grants, to a nd for the benefit of the Leased Land [Parcel 1], and each and every present or future owner of any interest in the Leased Land, including but not limited to Grantee and each of their respective tenants, subtenants and invitees, a perpetual non -exclusive easement for roadway purposes and for pedestrian and vehicular access, ingress, egress, use and enjoyment , together with all necessary rights and support and slope easements incidental thereto, in, to, over, upon, across and through that portion of the Undeveloped Land described on Exhibit C (“Access Easement”).
Cochran Properties purchased Parcel 1 from the Simi Valley Unified School District (the “School District”) on November 7, 2017, at which time the School District also owned Parcel C. As part of that purchase, the School District and Cochran Properties recorded a First Amendment to the Easement Agreement, which provides in Paragraph 3(c):
“Notwithstanding anything in the Easement Agreement or this First Amendment, including, without limitation, Paragraph 1 of this First Amendment, to the contrary, Grantee shall have the following rights, for the benefit of Parcel 1 and all future owners of Parcel 1, with respect to the use of the Access Easement: (a) to maintain 328
Algeria R. Ford
January 20, 2025
16224.4:11440429.1
landscaping and related irrigation devices on the western side of the Access Easement adjacent to Parcel 1 to the extent originally required by the City of Simi Valley, California as a condition to granting entitlements for the development of the improvements on Parcel 1, provided, Grantee shall be responsible to maintain such landscaping and irrigation devices at all times at its sole cost and expense, notwithstanding any alternative allocation of Maintenance Expenses … (c) to maintain any encroachments of improvements from Parcel 1 onto the Access Easement as existing on the date hereof, including, without limitation, any parking spaces or parking areas.”
At the risk of stating the obvious, the purpose of this Amendment was to specify certain rights included in Parcel 1’s use and enjoyment of the Easement.
Cochran Properties has a recorded easement granting to it the right to maintain landscaping and encroachments of improvements, including parking spaces, onto the Access Easement as they existed as of the date the Easement Amendment was recorded, November 7, 2017. The owners of Parcel C have “the right to use the easement as long as the use does not interfere with or impede the superior right of enjoyment of the easement owner. ” Miller & Starr, 6 Cal. Real Est. § 15:65 (4th ed.).
The proposed development plans submitted to the City of Simi Valley by the owner of Parcel C , CoolIt Rentals (the “Applicant”) scheduled for a public hearing on January 22, 2025 (Agenda Item No. 12.A.2), call for the removal of a number of parking spaces and a number of trees and other landscaping currently maintained by Cochran Properties in the Easement area. That removal clearly would substantially interfere with Cochran Properties’ right to such parking and landscaping in the Easement area and therefore is prohibited by the Easement Agreement and by law.
I have provided our position to Sean Gibson, Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner, and note that city staff did not include my letter outlining our legal position in the packet of exhibits attached to the Staff Report for Agenda Item No. 12.A.2. However, city staff did include a letter containing the Applicant’s competing legal analysis, which misleadingly presents an incomplete record of the relevant legal positions. For the city staff to include one side’s position and not the other appears to be an endorsement without justification. I am submitting our position as a public comment, but wanted to directly express my concern about the failure to include Cochran Properties’ position, as provided to city staff in time to include with Agenda Item 12.A.2.
Cochran Properties is preparing to file a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief to obtain an order clarifying its rights under the recorded easement. Given that there is an ongoing controversy about my client’s property rights, our position is that the City should not be providing approval for plans that would impede Cochran Properties’ rights under the Easement, including permitting Applicant to remove Cochran Properties’ encroachments and impede its future 329
Algeria R. Ford
January 20, 2025
16224.4:11440429.1
development rights. I understand that the City has characterized these significant concerns about property rights as “a civil matter amongst neighbors,” but the Planning Commission’s grant of a conditional use permit to Applicant that directly contemplates Applicant’s trampl ing of Cochran Properties’ rights under a recorded easement would be the City endorsing one legal position over another with no legal authority or judicial determination. Such an action would be impermissible and inconsistent with the City and Planning Commission’s legal obligation to protect and respect private property rights .
Nothing contained in this letter is intended to nor shall constitute a waiver of any claims, rights or remedies that Cochran Properties has or may have arising with respect to the Easement or under California law, and all such claims, rights and remedies are hereby expressly reserved. No acts nor failures to act by Cochran Properties shall be deemed a waiver of any right to exercise in full all of its rights and remedies available with respect to the Easement and under California law as the result of any interference with such rights under the Easement Agreement.
Sincerely,
Pooja S. Nair
CC Debra James ([email protected])
330
1 Zarui Chaparyan
From: doug cochranproperties.com <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 11:40 AM
To: Sean Gibson
Cc: Zarui Chaparyan; Pooja Nair; [email protected]
Subject: Planning Commission Hearing
Attachments: 1988 04 12 Grant of Easement and Agreement of CC&Rs 07 88-47948.pdf; 2017 11 07 First Amendment to Easement and Agreement of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect a phishing attempt please report it as phishing. Learn how.
Hi Sean,
I have some additional detailed points I would like to make to the Planning Commission that would be difficult to communicate within the time allotted for my comments during the hearing. Please provide this email and the attachments to the Planning Commission.
1. First, I want to reiterate that no improvements from Parcel C, with the possible exception of roadway paving, are allowed in the easement area, including the future monument signage at the northern end of my easement.
2. The project violates and/or threatens many parts of the Resolution, Project Permit Conditions, and the Conditional Use Permit, including but not limited to:
1. Section 2, Item E of the Resolution, and Item G-4 of the Conditional Use Permit. a. Section 2, Item E states, "The design, location, operating characteristics, and size of the proposed project will not have a significant impact on aesthetics and view protections of the site."
Item G-4 of the Conditional Use Permit states, "The design, location operating characteristics, and size of the proposed use would be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity, in terms of aesthetics, character, scale and view protection; and"
331
2 b. The proposed project has a significant impact on aesthetics and is not compatible with my project as it violates a recorded easement, plants large trees with canopies overhanging my roof, creates mixed ownership within the same planter, creates an aesthetically odd situation where the landscaping on the west side of the driveway is consistent all the way up the driveway until you hit this new project, and it destroys the property of a neighbor. Furthermore, the project does not take into considerati on future
uses of my property. The access easement area is larger than the existing roadway, and a future development may and probably will want to relocate the road within the access easement. It is worth noting that the District project on Parcel A did none of these things.
2. Section 6 of the Resolution.
a. Section 6 of the Resolution states, "Each and every one of the findings and determinations set forth in this resolution are based on competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project." b. The plans do not conform with the recorded easement as the plans show improvements constructed within the easement by the servient tenement that would hinder the dominant tenement from fully utilizing the access easement. c. The plans do not conform with the recorded First Amendment to the easement because they allow for the destruction of property rightfully located in the access easement and owned by the dominant tenement. d. The plan documents submitted by the Applicant are not consistent between themselves. For example, the location of the property line relative to my buildings is different on the Site Plan, Overall Site Plan, and Tree Map. Other inaccuracies are outlined in my previous email to you and are now incorporated as Exhibit 2 of Agenda Item No. 12.A.2. of the January 22, 2025 hearing.
3. Section 7 of the Resolution.
a. Section 7 of the Resolution states, "The Planning Commission's analysis and evaluation of the project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the Planning Commission's lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate projections." b. The Planning Commission is not taking into consideration a knowable issue: nothing lasts forever. At some point, my property will be redeveloped. At that point, the owner of my property will have the right to relocate its access road anywhere within the access easement or even over the entire access easement. In fact, it would make sense that the access road would be relocated to the western side of the access easement to form a straight line. It is also possible that the road could be extended all the way to the northernmost point of the access easement to provide rear access for a new building constructed further north on my property.
4. General Condition 1 of the Project Permit Conditions a. General Condition 1 states, "The effectiveness of this project will be suspended for the time period that any condition of Approval is appealed whether administratively or as part of a legal action filed in a court of competent jurisdiction." b. Even if the project is approved, the approval will be immediately suspended. If the CUP is approved by the Planning Commission, my attorney will be appealing the decision to the City Council, and will seek relief from any adverse city decision in Ventura County Superior Court.
332
3 5. Environmental Services Conditions A-4 of the Project Permit Conditions a. Environmental Services Conditions A-4 states, "Anything which is not shown on the application/plans, or which is not specifically approved, or which is not in compliance with this CUP, is not approved. Any application and/or plans which are defective as to, without limitation, omission, dimensions, scale, use, colors, materials, encroachments, easements, renders any entitlement null and void."
b. Approving the project violates Environmental Services Conditions A-4, as outlined in my email, regarding plan errors and inconsistencies. As stated previously, the application is defective since it constructs improvements within the easement area and removes allowed encroachments by my property. Also, Figure 3 in the Staff Report inaccurately illustrates the landscaping around the subject project, including the foreground, which would be on my property. Figure 5 in the Staff Report inaccurately illustrates the improvements within the access easement and the building's relationship to the freeway. These figures also fail to show the outside storage relative to the building, which is the whole reason this project is being processed as a CUP.
Thanks,
Doug
333
Direct No.: 213.236.2729
Our File No.: 8707.0020
[email protected]
Los Angeles – Inland Empire – Marin County – Oakland – Orange County – Palm Desert – San Diego – San Francisco – Silicon Valley – Ventura County 444 South Flower Street - 40 th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071 -2953
voice 213.236.0600 - fax 213.236.2700
www.bwslaw.com
January 20, 2025
Mr. Pooja S. Nair
Ervin, Cohen & Jessup, LLP
9401 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2974
Via Email: [email protected]
Re: Letter dated January 20, 2025
Dear Mr. Nair:
As you are aware, our firm represents the City of Simi Valley as its City Attorney’s office; I am the Senior Assistant City Attorney responsible for land use matters. Your letter dated January 20, 2025 and sent to City Attorney Al Ford was forwarded to my attention (the “Letter”). Thank you for the Letter.
As you note, the City’s planning staff previously informed your client that the City does not involve itself with private disputes between property owners. The Letter does not alter that position. Reading that Letter, it appears that your client will be seeking judicial intervention to determine the parties’ respective property rights. That is certainly the correct forum for resolving the parties’ differences. The City will definitely comply with any court order that requires suspension of Planning Commission’s public hearing scheduled for January 22, 2025.
Your client is, of course, welcome to appear and provide public comment to the Planning Commission at that time. I will also ensure that your letter dated January 20, 2025 is forwarded to the Planning Commission (along with this response) as part of the written public comment. I am sure that the omission of your previous letter from the agenda packet was inadvertent.
The Letter’s underlying claim that the City is somehow biased (or prejudiced) in this matter is unsupported by any evidence. Nor is the complaint that the City is “trampling” your client’s property rights. The Letter provides no legal authority or evidence suggesting that the City’s action in considering this land use application is improper.
Instead, the Letter only states your client’s arguments regarding its property rights. As noted above, the forum for deciding such matters is a court of competent jurisdiction. It is 334
January 20, 2025
not the City. Accordingly, the Planning Commission will proceed with the public hearing as scheduled.
Very truly yours,
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Karl H. Berger
Senior Assistant City Attorney
City of Simi Valley
KHB
C: City Attorney Al Ford
Environmental Services Director Stratis Perros
Deputy Environmental Services Director Sean Gibson
335
AGENDA ITEM NO.
5 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MOBILE HOME RENT MEDIATION BOARD
TREE ADVISORY BOARD
City Council Chamber January 22, 2025
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
1. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Tolson, Kennedy, and Rice; Vice Chairperson Christmann; Chairperson Mann
Absent: None
4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
By a unanimous vote, Ivana Christmann was elected Chairperson and Lee Kennedy as Vice Chairperson for 2025.
5. ASSUMPTION OF CHAIR BY NEW CHAIRPERSON
6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was the consensus of the Commission to move agenda item 12.A.3. to the beginning of agenda item 12.
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – December 4, 2024
It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the minutes as submitted.
8. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT – None
9. PUBLIC STATEMENTS – None
336
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 2 January 22, 2025
10. CORRESPONDENCE
Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson stated that two supplemental reports for agenda item 12.A.1, one supplemental for agenda item
12.A.2, one supplemental for agenda item 12.A.3, and one supplemental for agenda item 13.A.1. were submitted. Copies were provided at the dais as well as at the table in the lobby for the public.
11. CONSENT CALENDAR – None
12. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. PD-S-1054, ANX-0077, ANX-2024-0001, GPA-0073, Z-S-0613, Z-S- 2024-0005, and TT-5658-A; SVJV Partners LLC: To consider an Annexation (ANX-77), General Plan Amendment (GPA-73), Zone Change (Z-S-0613), Planned Development Permit (PD-S-1054), and Tentative Map (TT-5658-A) 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 Erringer Road and Falcon Street; and annexation of County Island properties (ANX-2024-0001)
Staff Contact: Elizabeth Richardson
(805) 583-6334
There were no ex parte communications to report.
Chairperson Christmann opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.
David Mosso stated the annexation cannot be forced on the property owners without their consent and would like to know which California law allows annexations to be forced on residents. Mr. Mosso asked how the annexation would affect the City’s tax revenue, if the annexed homes count towards the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), if the drinking water is the reason for the Island annexation, are there any disadvantages of annexing the North Canyons property now and later annexing each individual island when development is proposed within the island, and will individual annexation create any additional costs to the City.
Jan Lea stated concerns for the Island residents not being represented by the elected officials representing Simi Valley. Ms. Lea asked why the annexation is being forced on the Island residents when they didn’t ask for it. 337
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 3 January 22, 2025
Beat
riz Gutzi asked if a bus service will go to Falcon Street; what plans the City has to prohibit cars from traveling on Milestone Avenue; and if fences, gates, and speed bumps will be added.
Arpad Gutzi asked why the North Canyon development is being comingled with island annexation.
The following submitted a speaker card wishing to speak in opposition to the project but did not speak when called:
• Emily Walker
• Jamie Dagg
• Matt Bancroft
• Vern Orth
• Sheila Kuntz
• Joshua Galvan
The following people submitted a speaker card in opposition but did not wish to speak:
• Dave Hardy
• Mary Eral
• Jody Bancroft
• Bonnie Canfield
• Mike Jones
• Constantino Clarizio
• Cecilia Jones
Chairperson Christmann closed the public testimony portion of the hearing Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson stated that a written response will be given for the questions.
It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the item to the April 9, 2025 meeting.
1. CUP-S-2023-0004; Pak Group, LLC: To consider a Conditional Use Permit (CUP-S-2023-0004) to construct a 66,431 square-foot industrial tilt-up building on a 7.67-acre vacant site for warehousing and manufacturing of bakery ingredients; and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subject application; located at 615 West Los Angeles Avenue.
Staff Contact: Alexandra Clingman
(805) 583-6772
There were no ex parte communications to report.
Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson gave a brief overview of the project.
338
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 4 January 22, 2025
Ass
ociate Planner Alexandra Clingman gave a power-point presentation on the project.
Commissioner Rice asked for clarification regarding an incidental take permit.
Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator Naren Gunasekera stated that it is a permit issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Chairperson Christmann opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.
The Applicants, Brian Poliquin and Walt Postelwait, were present. Applicant, Walt Postelwait, stated the hours of operation will be from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Mr. Postelwait stated more shifts could potentially be added later.
Commissioner Rice asked if more shifts were added, would they have the same amount of staff. Walt Postelwait responded later shifts would have less staff.
Commissioner Rice stated the amount of open space listed on the letters differs from acreage listed on the project. The applicant states the total open space hasn’t changed during the project and everything is accurate.
Commissioner Kennedy asked what type of business would be in the building. The applicant, Walt Postelwait, stated the company will be manufacturing dry goods used in baking.
Chairperson Christmann inquired how long the project will take to complete. The applicant, Brian Poliquin, stated the project should take approximately 16 months to complete.
Pedro Toscano, with the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, stated the positive impacts from hiring local contractors and workers.
Chase Preciado with the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility spoke in opposition to the project regarding potential odor, valley fever, and would prefer an Environmental Impact Report be drafted.
Associate Planner Alexandra Clingman stated an air quality report was prepared, and it was determined that dry blending ingredients would result in little to no odor impacts and the project would be designed with ventilation systems that would be approved by the City and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. Valley fever was not analyzed because it is not a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issue as it is related to work safety, but standard construction practices control measures are required under Rule 55 to minimize the risk of Valley Fever. The Least Bell's Vireo was included in the Biology Report for the project and was determined to not be present at the project site. Mitigation measures were incorporated into the project to require preconstruction surveys for nesting birds 339
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 5 January 22, 2025
and f
or the project to remain at least 100 feet away from Alamos Creek. Mr.
Gunasekera referenced a slide to show the fuel modification clearance around the proposed building and it does not affect Alamos Creek.
The applicant’s Environmental Consultant stated that they have conducted all the required surveys and will continue following all guidelines where wildlife is concerned.
Tim Rosenstein spoke on the air quality report that he drafted.
Vice Chairperson Kennedy asked if the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) used to run the calculations was an outdated version. Tim Rosenstein stated that an older CalEEMod was used but is comparable to the newer version.
Chairperson Christmann asked if the applicant plans on using local contractors.
The applicant stated local contractors will possibly be used.
Chairperson Christmann closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Rice stated he was concerned due to the numerous letters he received from the public about the project. Mr. Rice stated to be satisfied by the information the applicant gave.
Commissioner Kennedy stated he believes the building will be good for the City.
Commissioner Mann stated traffic concerns. Traffic Engineer Justin Link stated that a truck turn analysis was completed. Mr. Link stated that trucks can turn on that street and they can only go eastbound because the road doesn’t allow for two- ton trucks on the westbound side.
Commissioner Kennedy asked about the visibility when trucks enter and exit the site. Traffic Engineer Justin Link stated the project will have sufficient visibility of the trucks and roadway.
Chairperson Christmann stated to be in favor of the project and thinks it will create more jobs for the community.
COMMISSIONER RICE MOVED THAT THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI
VALLEY ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP-S-2023-0004)
340
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 6 January 22, 2025
AND
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO CONSTRUCT A
66,431 SQUARE-FOOT INDUSTRIAL TILT-UP
BUILDING ON A 7.67-ACRE VACANT SITE
Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion.
AYES: Commissioners Mann, Tolson, and Rice;
Vice Chairperson Kennedy; and
Chairperson Christmann
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The appeal period for the CUP-S-2023-0004 is 14
calendar days.
2. CUP-S-2023-0011; CoolIt Rentals: To consider a Conditional Use Permit to construct a construct a 24,290-square foot industrial building, with accompanying outdoor storage on a 3.84-acre vacant parcel; located north of 875 Cochran Street and approximately 600 feet west of First Street
Staff Contact: Zarui Chaparyan
(805) 583-6774
There were no ex parte communications to report.
Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson gave a brief overview of the project.
Associate Planner Zarui Chaparyan gave a PowerPoint presentation on the project.
Commissioner Tolson stated concerns about parking due to the high number of tenants for phase two. Associate Planner Zarui Chaparyan stated there will be an adequate amount of parking for phase two and referenced the floor plan.
Chairperson Christmann opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.
The Applicants, Brian Poliquin and Mike Lohman, were present. 341
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 7 January 22, 2025
Chai
rperson Christmann asked if the possible tenants would require additional parking. Applicants, Brian Poliquin and Mike Lohman, stated there will be sufficient parking.
Vice Chairperson Kennedy asked if the access easement had been discussed.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Karl Berger stated that the Planning Commission is not the setting to discuss private property rights.
Doug Felbinger stated he owns the adjacent property to the project and is concerned about development in his easement.
Pooja Najir, attorney to Doug Felbinger spoke in opposition of the project related to the access easement.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Karl Berger stated that Planning Commission is not a court and the two parties need to handle this matter in a judicial setting.
The applicant’s civil engineer stated that the plans show all the easements the way they were recorded in the title report.
Chairperson Christmann closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Rice stated the project is a compatible land use and won’t be visible from the street.
Commissioner Mann stated that the project meets all the requirements.
Commissioner Tolson stated he likes everything presented and hopes the owners can come to an agreement.
Vice Chairperson Kennedy stated concerns the landowners haven’t come to an agreement.
Chairperson Christmann is in favor of the project but doesn’t like the disagreement between the landowners.
COMMISSIONER TOLSON MOVED THAT THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI
VALLEY ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP-S-2023-0011) TO
CONSTRUCT A 24,290-SQUARE FOOT
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH ACCOMPANYING
OUTDOOR STORAGE ON A 3.84-ACRE PARCEL;
342
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 8 January 22, 2025
AND
A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Commissioner Mann seconded the motion.
AYES: Commissioners Mann, Rice, and Tolson;
and Chairperson Christmann
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Vice Chairperson Kennedy
ABSENT: None
The appeal period for the CUP-S-2023-0011. is 14
calendar days.
B. OTHER – None
13. NEW BUSINESS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. CUP-S-2024-0007; Devenney Group Ltd. Architects: To consider a Conditional Use Permit Modification to construct a new central utility plant building and yard with three emergency backup generators for an existing hospital campus; located at 2975 Sycamore Drive
Staff Contact: Neal Morrissette
(805) 583-6867
There were no ex parte communications to report.
Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson gave a brief overview of the project.
Associate Planner Neal Morrissette gave a presentation of the staff report.
Vice Chairperson Kennedy asked about the hours they will be testing the generators.
Chairperson Christmann opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. 343
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 9 January 22, 2025
The Appl
icant, Sasha King, gave a brief presentation about the project. Mark Mitchelson, with the applicant team, stated the testing of the generators will be before 7 a.m. because the testing needs to be completed before surgeries start at 7 a.m. Ms. King stated the decibels of the generators should be no louder than a refrigerator.
Commissioner Mann asked what the size of the generators will be. The applicant stated that they will each be the size of a semi-truck.
Commissioner Mann asked where the decibel reading of 45 decibels is being measured from. The applicant, Sasha King, stated the reading was measured at the south property line.
Otto Suoboda stated concerns with the noise and exhaust coming from the generators. Brian George, with the applicant team, stated the project will meet the air quality standards.
Chairperson Christmann asked if the exhaust from the generator will be greater when the remaining generators are installed. Brian George stated the exhaust will be less because the new generators installed are more efficient.
Commissioner Mann inquired the location of the current generators. Brian George showed the current location of the generators and the location of the new generators.
Chairperson Christmann closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.
The Commissioners had no comments or questions.
COMMISSIONER TOLSON MOVED THAT THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI
VALLEY ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION (CUP-
S-2024-0007) TO CONSTRUCT A NEW BUILDING
AND YARD FOR A CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT FOR
AN EXISTING HOSPITAL CAMPUS; AND A
DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT
FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion.
344
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 10 January 22, 2025
AYE
S: Commissioners Mann, Rice, and Tolson;
Vice Chairperson Kennedy; and
Chairperson Christmann
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The appeal period for the CUP-S-2024-0007 is 14
calendar days.
B. OTHER – None
14. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
A. STAFF
Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson stated the next meeting will be held on February 5, 2025.
B. PLANNING COMMISSION
Commissioner Rice asked if staff could review Senate Bills that recently passed, specifically Senate Bill 1211.
C. MOBILE HOME RENT MEDIATION BOARD – None
D. TREE ADVISORY BOARD
Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson stated the City’s Tree City USA application has been approved.
15. ADJOURNMENT
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting is on February 5, 2025.
Minutes prepared by:
Nikolette Baer
345