Simi Valley City Council
October 6, 2025

C

ITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
O
ctober 6, 2025
T
O: City Council
F
ROM: Department of Environmental Services
S
UBJECT: A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM

RUNKLE CANYON, LLC FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE RUNKLE
CANYON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA- 2025-0001 (DA -04-01
AMD#05) TO ALLOW A THREE YEAR EXTENSION WITH A POTENTIAL

TWO YEAR OPTION FOR THE RUNKLE CANYON/WOODLANDS

PROJECT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUSES OF SEQUOIA,

TALBERT, WATSON, AND COMET AVENUES, AND HIGH POINT PLACE AND HAZELNUT COURT; AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
I
t is recommended that the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 1364 (page 7) approving Development Agreement Amendment No. DA-2025-0001 (DA-04-01 AMD#05).

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
T
his is a continued public hearing from July 21, 2025. The City Council staff report from that meeting is attached for background (without exhibits).

A
t the City Council’s direction, the City Manager and City Attorney negotiated with the developer’s representatives regarding the Fifth Amendment to the Development Agreement. The negotiations resulted in a n amendment that (1) establishes specific milestones that must be achieved by identified deadlines; (2) initially extends the DA for three years; (3) leaves open the possibility for an additional two -year extension; (4) requires a balloon payment should milestones be missed; and (5) ensures that the City’s costs are recovered.

I
n summary, the milestones are split up between the following project components:

A. “S
enior Units/Recreation Center ” (138-unit senior condominiums and accompanying recreation center building);
B. “Estate Lots” (4 Estate Lots currently in plan check); and C. “Planned Development Permit” for the remaining 21 estate lots not currently entitled.

E
ach component contains deadlines for applicable milestones:
• Appl
ication submittals;
AGENDA ITEM NO.

5A

• D eemed complete deadlines;
• E ntitlement approvals (Planning Commission Hearing); • P lan check submittals;
• B uilding Permit/Zoning Clearance issuances;
• F irst Building Permit inspections; and
• F inal Building Permit inspections.

Table 1 below summarizes the milestones. The milestones were established to provide reasonable and achievable time frames for the components. The so- called “hard” milestones would result in the balloon payments; “soft” milestones are placeholders, i.e., expected dates that may change depending upon circumstances.

Table 1
Date Milestone Milestone
Type
10/06/25 City Council DA Extension approved
10/31/25 Senior Units/Recreation Center Submit for Building Plan check to Building & Safety. KB to provide an At-Risk letter if Administrative Action
approvals have not been obtained or appeal period
exhausted
Soft
12/01/25 Planned Development Permit Estate Lot PD Application for 21 lots submitted Soft 12/01/25 City Council First Quarterly Update
12/31/25 Estate Lots Building Permits and Zoning Clearances issued for four (4) estate lots
Soft
03/26/26 City Council Second Quarterly Update
03/31/26 Planned Development Permit Senior Site PD Deemed Complete Soft 07/31/26 Planned Development Permit Estate Lot PD approved at Planning Commission for 21 lots
Soft
07/31/26 Estate Lots First Building Permit Inspection on Estate Lots Hard 06/01/26 City Council Third Quarterly Update
09/01/26 City Council Fourth Quarterly Update
09/30/26 Senior Units/Recreation Center Building Permits and Zoning Clearances issued for all Senior Units and Recreation Center. Partial in-lieu
payment of $250,000 will be due with the issuance of
first zoning/building permit of Senior Unit/Recreation
Center building permit.

Hard
12/01/26 Estate Lots Building Permits for the four (4) estate lots finaled Soft 12/01/26 City Council Fifth Quarterly Update
01/15/27 Planned Development Permit First Building Permit inspection for 1-4 Senior Unit Lots Hard 03/01/27 City Council Sixth Quarterly Update
06/01/27 City Council Seventh Quarterly Update
06/30/27 Senior Units/Recreation Center First Building Permit inspection on Phase I of Senior Units/Recreation Center.

Soft
09/01/27 City Council Eighth Quarterly Update
09/01/27 Planned Development Permit Building Permits on 5-12 PD Lots finaled Hard 09/30/27 Senior Units/Recreation Center Final payment of $650,000 in-lieu fee Hard 2 Terminology

Building Permits finaled = Construction completed and ready for occupancy First Building Permit inspection = Inspection for setbacks and foundation/footings At-Risk = Submitting for building permit plan check prior to full entitlement approval

In addition to the balloon payment, missed “hard” milestones would result in the initial three-year term being final, i.e., any extension would require additional City Council approval. If, however, all of such milestones are achieved, the DA would be extended for an additional two years (upon City Manager concurrence) without the additional need for City Council approvals. Regardless, the Developer will be providing quarterly updates at City Council meetings to report on the developer’s progress.

Additionally, the Fifth Amendment causes the developer to reimburse the City’s costs associated with processing the application. This includes, without limitation, the City Attorney’s costs and third- party engineering (needed as part of the City’s consider ation regarding infrastructure acceptance). There is an initial payment of $50,000 for past costs; future costs would be paid from an initial deposit of $25,000 that must be replenished as necessary.

Both the developer and City have implemented protocols to help facilitate the timely completion of this project. It is expected that the ongoing cooperation will continue.

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES

The following alternatives are available to the City Council:

1. Introduce Ordinance No. 1364 approving Development Agreement Amendment No. DA-2025-0001 (DA-04-01 AMD#05) to allow a three-year time extension with a potential two-year option;

2. Modify or not introduce an ordinance; or

3. Provide staff with other direction.

12/01/27 City Council Ninth Quarterly Update
03/01/28 City Council Tenth Quarterly Update
03/30/28 Planned Development Permit Building Permits finaled on PD Lots 13-16 Soft 06/01/28 City Council Eleventh Quarterly Update
06/30/28 Senior Units/Recreation Center Building Permits for Senior units Phase 1 finaled Hard 06/30/28 Senior Units/Recreation Center First Building Permit inspection on Senior Phase 2 and Recreation Center
Soft
09/01/28 City Council Twelfth Quarterly Update to City Council 09/30/28 Planned Development Permit First Building Permit inspection on PD lots 17-21 Hard 09/30/28 City Council 2-Year DA Extension if all hard deadlines are met 12/01/28 City Council Thirteenth Quarterly Update to City Council 3 The City Manager and City Attorney recommend Alternative No. 1.

SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION

I move to introduce Ordinance No. 1364approving Development Agreement Amendment No. DA -2025-0001 (DA -04-01 AMD#05) to allow a three-year time extension with a potential two-year option.

SUMMARY

The Developer seeks a five-year time extension to the Development Agreement for the project known as Runkle Canyon/Woodlands. At the July 21, 2025, hearing, the City Council continued the public hearing to allow staff to negotiate the terms of the milestones to be included in the operating memorandum for the Development Agreement. The Time Extension will not affect the previously approved subdivision location, infrastructure improvements, or the number of dwelling units, residential density, or other design of the approved project. It is recommended that the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 1364.

____________________________________
Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director

INDEX Page

Public Hearing Procedure ........................................................... …...5 Ordinance No. 1364 for DA-2025-001 (DA-04-01, AMD #05) ............ 7 Exhibit 1 – City Council July 21, 2025 Staff Report .......................... 17

4 PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE

HEARING DATE: October 6, 2025

1. CITY CLERK: This is the time and place set for a continued public hearing to consider a request from Runkle Canyon, LLC, for an
Amendment to the Runkle Canyon Development Agreement
DA-2025-0001 (DA 04-01 AMD#05) to allow a three-year time extension with potential two-year option for the Runkle Canyon/Woodlands project located at the south terminus of Sequoia, Talbert, Watson and Comet Avenues, and High
Point Place and Hazelnut Court; pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21166, additional environmental
review is not required; and introduction of an ordinance (Read by City Clerk including reading of Ordinance)

2. MAYOR: Before we begin, are there any ex parte communications to report?

3. ANY COUNCIL
MEMBER: (Report)

4. MAYOR: Staff may begin with the oral report on this matter.

5. STAFF: (Report)

6. MAYOR: Any questions of staff from City Council Members? (Questions of staff and staff response)

7. MAYOR: At this time I would like to open the hearing. Does the applicant wish to be heard on this matter?

8. APPLICANT: (Comments)

9. MAYOR: Any questions of the applicant from City Council Members? (Questions of applicant and applicant response).

10. MAYOR: Are there any members of the public wishing to be heard on this matter?

11. AUDIENCE: Public Testimony and Comments.

12. MAYOR: Does staff desire to respond to any comments or issues raised?

13. STAFF: (Response to comments and additional City Council questions)

14. MAYOR: Does the applicant desire any rebuttal?
5 15. APPLICANT: (Rebuttal)

16. MAYOR: The hearing is now closed.

17. MAYOR: Any further comments or questions from City Council Members? (Note: If the City Council has any further questions of staff or the applicant at this time, the Public Hearing may need to be re-opened.)

18. MAYOR: I will now entertain a motion.

19. ANY COUNCIL
MEMBER :

City Council Actions (by motion of any Council Member):

1) Introduce, modify, or not introduce Ordinance No. 1364 (requires reading of ordinance title);

2) Provide staff with other direction.

* Any action to refer the matter back to staff or to continue the matter requires a second and a vote.

20. ANY COUNCIL
MEMBER : Second

21. MAYOR: (Call for vote)

22. MAYOR: Proceed to the next item.

6 ORDINANCE NO. 1364

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

APPROVING A FIFTH AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. DA -04-01 BETWEEN THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY AND RUNKLE

CANYON, LLC

The City Council of the City of Simi Valley does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:

A. On April 15, 2025, Runkle Canyon, LLC (“Developer”) filed an application to extend Development Agreement No. DA -04-01 (“Project”), recorded as Instrument No. 20040526- 0147236, for an additional five years (until July 10, 2030).

B. The City reviewed the Project’s environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq ., “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”).

C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on June 18, 2025 and, following a public hearing, made recommendations to the City Council in accordance with applicable law.

D. On July 21, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project. Notice of the time, place and purpose of the public hearing was provided in accordance with Government Code §§ 65867, 65090 and 65091.

E. The matter was continued and o n October 6, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed continued Public Hearing to further consider the Project. Notice of the time, place and purpose of the public hearing was provided in accordance with Government Code §§ 65867, 65090 and 65091.

F. This Ordinance, and its findings, are based upon the entire administrative record considered during the July 21, 2025 and October 6, 2025 public hearings including, without limitation, the staff report s and accompanying documents.

SECTION 2: Findings. Pursuant to Government Code § 65867.5, the City Council finds the following:

A. The Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Simi Valley. The Development Agreement furthers the goals of the General Plan and is in the interest of the general community welfare in that the Development Agreement will, among other things, facilitate the 7 development of the Project site, which is consistent with the following General Plan policies:

1. General Plan Policy III -1.6.1, that states, “The pattern of existing neighborhoods, land use and architecture should be respected.” The Amendment does not affect nor change the pattern of the existing neighborhood, land use, or architecture. The approved Runkle Canyon Project is designed to integrate with the existing single- family houses located adjacent to the project area. The previ ously approved residential lots are similar in size or modestly larger than the existing residential lots surrounding the project area. Further, the Applicant has complied with paying all of the Public Facility Payments that the City will use to offset costs for public improvements, public services, and public community services consistent with General Plan Goal IX -2, which states to “Maintain municipal services, public utilities and facilities at adequate levels of service.” Therefore, the proposed Amendment is consistent with this finding.

2. The Project does not affect or change the authorized uses and standards in the Residential Moderate Density (RMod) and Residential Medium Density (RM) zones of the Runkle
Canyon/Woodlands Project Specific Plan. The proposed Project continues to be compatible since the time extension does not affect or change the land uses. Therefore, this Project is compatible with uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the zones of the property.

B. The Development Agreement also provides certainty in planning and construction as well as orderly development, while providing assurance to the Applicant that it may construct the Project.

C. The Project complies with the conditions, requirements, restrictions, and terms of the SVMC, in that it includes all mandatory provisions required by Government Code § 65865.2 and does not include any provisions that are not authorized by the Development Agreement Act (Government Code §§ 65864 - 65869.5).

SECTION 3: Public Benefits. The Development Agreement provides for public benefits including, without limitation:

A. Public improvements, public services, and community amenities.

B. A remaining in- lieu fee for 30 affordable units of $900,000 that may be utilized by the City for the construction or otherwise provide housing affordable to income eligible senior households.

8 ORD. NO. 1364

SECTION 4: Environmental Review. Because of the facts set forth above, the Project is consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) certified (and adopted) by the City Council on April 24, 2004 via Resolution No. 2001- 41 (State Clearinghouse No. 2002121143) and the FEIR Addendum approved August 13, 2012. None of the elements set forth in Public Resources Code § 21166 or CEQA Guidelines § 15162 exists.

Accordingly, no subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaratio n or Addendum is required to be prepared before adopting the Project. Implementation of mitigation measures identified in the FEIR will be monitored as called for in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted on April 24. 2004.

SECTION 5: Notice of Determination. The City Manager , or designee, is directed to file a notice of determination in accordance with CEQA §§ 21152, 21167(f); CEQA Guidelines § 15094; and any other applicable law.

SECTION 6: Incorporation of Development Agreement Amendment; Changes; Execution. In accordance with Government Code §§ 65864, et seq. this Ordinance approves the Fifth Amendment to the Development Agreement (“Amendment”) in substantially the form attached as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated into this Ordinance by reference.

A. The Amendment may be changed before execution as authorized by the City Council during the public hearings for the Project.

B. The Amendment may be changed before execution for minor clarifications and technical, clerical, corrections as approved by the City Attorney including, without limitation, completion of references, status of planning approvals, and completion and conformity of all exhibits to the Amendment.

C. The City Council authorizes the Mayor to execute the Amendment on the City’s behalf in a form approved by the City Attorney. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to execute amendments or operating memoranda as permitted by the DA, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

SECTION 7: Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly construed in order to achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council’s intent that the provisions of this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.

SECTION 8: Enforceability. Repeal of any provision of the Simi Valley Municipal Code does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this Ordinance’s effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Ordinance.

9 ORD. NO. 1364

SECTION 9: Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Ordinance are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the matter. The determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

SECTION 10: Limitations. The City Council’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 City Council’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are, in effect, regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 11: Recordation. The City Clerk, or designee, is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of Simi Valley’s book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within 15 days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, and cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

SECTION 12: Effective Date. This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after second reading and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2025.

Attest:

__________________________ __________________________________ Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

__________________________ ______________________________ Algeria R. Ford, City Attorney Samantha C. Argabrite, City Manager

__________________________
Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director

10 ORD. NO. 1364

EXHIBIT A

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, California
93063 Attn: City Clerk

Space above this line for Recorder’s Use Only

Exempt from the payment of a recording fee pursuant to Government Code Sections 6103 and 27383.

FIFTH AMENDMENT TO FOURTH AMENDED AND RESTATED

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
[DA-2025-0001 (DA-04-01 AMD#05)] BETWEEN THE CITY OF SIMI

VALLEY AND RUNKLE CANYON, LLC

This Fifth Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Fourth Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DA -04-01 AMD#05 or the “Development Agreement”) is entered into on October 20, 2025, by and between the CITY OF SIMI VALLEY, a municipal corporation (“City”), and RUNKLE CANYON, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company and any successors or assigns (“Developer”). All capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined have the meanings ascribed to them in the Runkle Canyon Development Agreement. The Parties agree as follows:

SECTION 1: RECITALS. This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts and objectives:

a. On May 10, 2004, the Simi Valley City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1058 approving the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement was subsequently amended on August 13, 2012 (Ordinance No. 1197); August 29, 2016 (Ordinance No. 1261); March 11, 2019 (Ordinance No. 1295); and June 13, 2022 (Ordinance No. 1339);

b. The Development Agreement was set to expire on June 10, 2025 (the “Expiration Date”);

c. On April 15, 2025, Developer filed an application to extend the Development Agreement for an additional five years, which application tolled the Expiration Date for the period of City’s review and consideration of the request;

d. City and Developer agree that City has and maintains the requisite authority to extend the Development Agreement and could in the alternative enter into a new agreement entirely on similar terms;
11 ORD. NO. 1364

e. City is exercising its discretion to reinstate and reapprove the existing terms of the Development Agreement, as amended by this Fifth Amendment.

f. City and Developer seek to extend the Expiration Date for up to five years, subject to this Fifth Amendment , to facilitate the buildout of the remaining estate homes and the senior housing site;

g. Developer proposes no physical changes to the Project. Accordingly, no additional environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (see, Public Resources Code § 21166); and

h. Extending the Expiration Date requires the Parties’ adherence to the Runkle Canyon Milestone Schedule which is attached as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated by reference; it being understood that those milestones listed as “Soft” in Exhibit “A” are shared goals by the City and Developer which may not be timely achieved, while those milestones listed as “Hard” in Exhibit “A” must be achieved by the listed deadlines in order to secure the automatic full five year extension as contemplated in this Fifth Amendment.

SECTION 2: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3. Section 3 of the Development Agreement is amended as follows:

“Except as otherwise, provided, the Term of this Agreement ends October 6, 2028.

Provided that each of the Hard Milestones listed in Exhibit “A” is timely performed, including any tolling of deadlines pursuant to Section 29 of this Agreement, the Term of this Agreement will automatically be extended to October 6, 2030 without City Council action and upon written confirmation by the City Manager. The Term was established by the Parties as a reasonable estimate of the time required to complete the Project and obtain the public benefits from the Project. City finds that a term of such duration is reasonably necessary to receive the public benefits from the Project. In establishing and agreeing to such term, City has determined that this Agreement incorporates sufficient provisions to permit City to monitor adequately and respond to changing circumstances and conditions in granting permits and approvals and undertaking actions to carry out the Project.”

SECTION 3: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 26. The Development Agreement is amended to add subsection (l) to Section 26 as follows:

“ (l) The City Manager, or designee, and City Attorney, or designee, should meet at least once a month during the Term with Developer’s Regional Vice- President, or designee, and General Counsel, or designee, to facilitate the timely completion of the Project and coordinate quarterly updates to the City Council.”

SECTION 4: ADDITION OF SECTION 29. A new Section 29 is added to the Development Agreement to read as follows:

“ 29. Force Majeure.

(a) Except for Force Majeure Delays, Developer must meet the Hard Milestones identified in Exhibit “A” on or before the dates listed in that 12 ORD. NO. 1364

Exhibit. Should Developer fail to meet any Hard Milestone, Developer must, pay to City within 30 days after that deadline, and without demand, a portion of the outstanding Affordable Housing In Lieu Fee in the amount of $300,000. Should Developer fail to meet every Hard Milestone by October 6, 2028, except as extended due to Force Majeure Delays, the Development Agreement will not automatically extend by two year s as contemplated by this Fifth Amendment. City may, but is not required to, extend the Development Agreement by City Council action in accordance with applicable law.

(b) “Force Majeure Delay” means delay beyond the reasonable control of Developer (and despite Developer’s good faith efforts) including, without limitation, (i) unanticipated acts of nature including Severe Weather; (ii) civil commotion; (iii) strikes, picketing or other labor disputes resulting from matters independent from Developer; (i v) shortages of materials or supplies, (vi) terrorism; (vii) the failure, delay or inability of City to provide adequate levels of public services, facilities or infrastructure to the Project Site; (viii) delay caused by governmental restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental entities other than City including enactment of conflicting state or federal laws or regulations ; ( ix) judicial decisions or similar basis for excused performance; (x) governmental action or inaction (including, without limitation, the arbitrary or capricious failure, refusal, or delay in processing submissions, issuing permits or other approvals); (xi) economic conditions rendering continued development commercially unreasonable at Developer’s reasonable discretion and after good cause shown to City ; and ( xii) litigation brought by a third party attacking the validity of this Agreement. If Developer claims a Force Majeure Delay, it must notify City in writing of such delay within 30 days after the commencement of the delay, which notice (“Permitted Delay Notice”) includes the estimated length of the Force Majeure Delay. A Force Majeure Delay will be deemed to occur for the time period set forth in the Permitted Delay Notice unless City objects in writing within 10 days after receiving the Permitted Delay Notice. In the event of such objection, the parties must meet and confer within 30 days after the date of the objection with the objective of attempting to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution to the disagreement regarding the Permitted Delay . “Severe Weather” means weather that a reasonable person would find unusual and unanticipated at the time of the scheduling or the activity based on recent weather patterns for the period in question in the vicinity of the Project. If the Parties cannot come to an agreement, the Party claiming a Force Majeure Delay is entitled to seek judicial resolution via an action for specific performance pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. Times of performance under this Agreement may also be extended in writing by the mutual agreement of City and Developer.”

SECTION 5: REIMBURSEMENT. A new Section 30 is added to the Development Agreement to read as follows:

“Upon executing the Fifth Amendment, Developer must reimburse City for its costs in processing the Fifth Amendment in an amount of $50,000.

Additionally, it must provide a deposit of at least $25,000 (the “Initial Deposit”) to City for ongoing administration of this Fifth Amendment. City agrees to 13 ORD. NO. 1364

maintain the Initial Deposit in a separate trust account for Developer. The Initial Deposit and any subsequent replenishment must be used only to pay cost actually incurred in administering the Fifth Amendment and will reimburse City of third -party costs i ncluding, without limitation, engineering and legal costs. City may withdraw funds from the Initial Deposit to pay for costs and must provide Developer with monthly statements specifying the costs so incurred by City and paid from the Initial Deposit. Together with such monthly statements, City must provide to Developer copies of invoices for the costs shown in such monthly statements, including invoices for consulting, permitting, and other review fees associated with ensuring the availability or permits and approvals necessary for the development of the Project.

Developer has no obligation to pay as costs for which an invoice is not provided except that Developer understands that invoices for legal costs are privileged; only the total amounts will be provided. Within 10 business days after City notifies Developer in writing that the then remaining balance of the Initial Deposit is reduced to $1,000 or less, Developer must replenish the Initial Deposit to a balance of at least $25,000.”

SECTION 5: INTEGRATION. This Amendment to the Development Agreement reflects the complete understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. To the extent this Amendment conflicts with the Development Agreement, this Amendment supersedes the Development Agreement. In all other respects, the parties hereto re- affirm and ratify all other provisions of the Development Agreement. From and after the date of this Amendment, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it means the Development Agreement, as amended. This Fifth Amendment to the Development Agreement must be recorded in the Official Records of the County of Ventura upon its full execution and the effective date of the Ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City to approve this Amendment.

SECTION 6: COUNTERPARTS . This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all such counterparts, when taken together, shall constitute one agreement.

SECTION 7: SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Amendment to the Development Agreement is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the Agreement is not affected, unless the court specifically finds that the invalid part is so fundamental and essential to the understanding of the parties that the entire Agreement is invalidated.

[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
14 ORD. NO. 1364

SIGNATURE PAGE
TO

FIFTH AMENDMENT
TO

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Developer have signed this Amendment, by and through the signatures of their authorized representatives as of the day and year first hereinabove written.

Attest: City of Simi Valley,
A Municipal Corporation

By:

Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Mayor
of the City of Simi Valley

Approved as to Form: Runkle Canyon, LLC
A Delaware Limited Liability Company

___________________________ By: _______________________ Algeria R. Ford, Esq., City Attorney Keltie Cole, Authorized Agent

Approved as to Content:

Samantha C. Argabrite,
City Manager

Carolyn Johnson
Administrative Services Director

Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director
15 ORD. NO. 1364

EXHIBIT A
Runkle Canyon Milestone Schedule

Date Milestone Milestone
Type
10/06/25 City Council events DA Extension approved
10/31/25 Senior Units/Recreation Center Submit for Building Plan check to Building & Safety. KB to provide an At-Risk letter if Administrative Action approvals have not been obtained or appeal period exhausted.

Soft
12/01/25 Planned Development Permit Estate Lot PD Application for 21 lots submitted Soft 12/01/25 City Council First Quarterly Update
12/31/25 Estate Lots Building Permits and Zoning Clearances issued for four (4) estate lots.

Soft
03/26/26 City Council Second Quarterly Update
03/31/26 Planned Development Permit Estate Lot PD for 21 Lots Deemed Complete Soft 07/31/26 Planned Development Permit Estate Lot PD approved at Planning Commission for 21 l
Soft
07/31/26 Estate Lots First Building Permit Inspection on Estate Lots Hard 06/01/26 City Council Third Quarterly Update
09/01/26 City Council Fourth Quarterly Update
09/30/26 Senior Units/Recreation Center Building Permits and Zoning Clearances issued for all Senior Units and Recreation Center. Partial in-lieu
payment of $250,000 will be due with the issuance of first zoning/building permit of Senior Unit/Recreation Center building permit.

Hard
12/01/26 Estate Lots Building Permits for the four (4) estate lots finaled Soft 12/01/26 City Council Fifth Quarterly Update
01/15/27 Planned Development Permit First Building Permit inspection for 1-4 PD Lots Hard 03/01/27 City Council Sixth Quarterly Update
06/01/27 City Council Seventh Quarterly Update
06/30/27 Senior Units/Recreation Center First Building Permit inspection on Phase I of Senior Units/Recreation Center.

Soft
09/01/27 City Council Eighth Quarterly Update
09/01/27 Planned Development Permit Building Permits on 5-12 PD Lots finaled Hard 09/30/27 Senior Units/Recreation Center Final payment of $650,000 in-lieu fee Hard 12/01/27 City Council Ninth Quarterly Update
03/01/28 City Council Tenth Quarterly Update
03/30/28 Planned Development Permit Building Permits finaled on PD Lots 13-16 Soft 06/01/28 City Council Eleventh Quarterly Update
06/30/28 Senior Units/Recreation Center Building Permits for Senior units Phase 1 finaled Hard 06/30/28 Senior Units/Recreation Center First Building Permit inspection on Senior Phase 2 and Rec Center
Soft
09/01/28 City Council Twelfth Quarterly Update to City Council 09/30/28 Planned Development Permit First Building Permit inspection on PD lots 17-21 Hard 09/30/28 City Council 2-Year DA Extension if all hard deadlines are met. 12/01/28 City Council Thirteenth Quarterly Update to City Council Terminology: Building Permits finaled = Construction completed and ready for occupancy First Building Permit inspection = Inspection for setbacks and foundation/footings At-Risk = Submitting for building permit plan check prior to full entitlement approval

16 ORD. NO. 1364

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
July 21, 2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Department of Environmental Services
SUBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM RUNKLE

CANYON, LLC FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE RUNKLE CANYON
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA -2025-0001 (DA -04-01 AMD#0 5) TO

ALLOW A FIVE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR THE RUNKLE

CANYON/WOODLANDS PROJECT LOCATED A T THE SOUTHERN

TERMINUSES OF SEQUOIA, TALBERT, W ATSON, AND COMET
AVENUES, AND HIGH POINT PLACE AND HAZELNUT COURT ; AND

INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider introducing Ordinance No. 1364 (page 7) approving Development Agreement Amendment No. DA -2025-0001 (DA -04-01 AMD#05) to allow a five-year time extension. Note that this recommendation differs from the Planning Commission recommendation from June 18, 2025, as explained below.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The Runkle Canyon/Woodlands Project (Project) was approved in 2004. The Project is significant; it includes 461 dwelling units, massive infrastructure improvements, and private/public amenities. While the Project is mostly complete, there are still 25 custom home lots, 138 attached senior condominiums, and a senior recreation facility that require construction (“Remaining Facilities”).

Runkle Canyon, LLC is the developer for this Project. It is requesting that the City Council approve a five-year extension of the Development Agreement to complete the Remaining Facilities. Originally approved for a 10 -year term in 2004, the DA (DA-04-01) was subsequently extended in 2012, 2015, 2016, 2019, and 2022. The Fourth Amendment expired on July 10, 2025, but was automatically extended while the City considers Runkle Canyon’s request. The DA is terminated should the City Council deny an extension.

Termination of the DA would re sult in the Remaining Facilities not being constructed for the foreseeable future.

The Planning Commission consider ed the Developer’s request during a June 18, 2025, public hearing. Following that public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council approve a two -year extension of the DA with certain construction milestones. While discussing the matter, Commissioners were concerned that the Developer failed to show diligent progress in completing the Project (which is now 20 years old). The milestones recommended by the Commission are for the Developer to complete the following:

AGENDA ITEM NO.
5A
EXHIBIT 1
17 • Cons
truction of the four estate lot homes that are currently in plan check; • Construction of the Senior Recreation Center; or
• Construction of one or more of the 26 buildings that constitute the senior condominium complex.

The Planning Commission agenda packet is included as Exhibit 1, page 17.

Notwithstanding the Planning Commission’s recommendations, the City Manager and City Attorney recommend that the City Council consider extending the DA by five years.

The d
elays in construction are attributable to various factors including, without limitation, questi
ons about infrastructure constructed by the Developer. To help ensure that the Project is comp leted – and to resolve outstanding issues raised by the Developer and the City – a letter agreement (attached to Ordinance No. 1364) was executed in April to provide a framework for finding a path toward completion of the Project. As noted in Section 6 of that letter agreement, the DA is an important component of that framework.

Providing sufficient time to complete the Remaining Facilities will help close out the Project.

To
help address the Planning Commission concerns, the Developer proposes the following milestones
(“Operations Milestones”) be included within the DA
(please see below regarding how these would be implemented):

Senior Site
• August 1
, 2025: Developer files application for City review of the roof line revisions to accommodate solar panels.
• August
1, 2025: Developer files application for City review of the Senior Recreation Center for review of floor plan modifications to accommodate pool access requirements.
• Octob
er 1, 2025: Developer prepares new set of Rule 15 and Rule 20 plans to implement Southern California Edison requirements to implement single -phase electrical to three-phase electrical.
• December
31, 2025: within three months after City review of Developer’s application for roof line and Senior Recreation Center, Developer will update and submit updated plans for construction of senior facilities. • September
1, 2026: installation of new three -phase electrical and other adjustments.

Estate Lots
• August 1,
2025: Developer submits grading permit application for recertification of lots 162, 176, 190 and 198 Redwood Grove Court.
• August 1,
2025: Developer submits planned unit development application for remainder of estate lots.
18 • Sept
ember 1, 2025: Developer seeks building permits to construct estate facilities. • Mar
ch 2026: final certificates of occupancy anticipated following construction of estate facilities.

Sec
tion 22 of the DA allows the Developer and City to enter operating memoranda. These are executed by the City Manager and approved as to form by the City Attorney. If the Milestones are generally acceptable to the City Council, they would be further refined and memorialized in an operating memorandum between the parties. This will allow some flexibility for the construction schedule but still establish deadlines for the Developer. If desirable, a liquidated damages clause could be negotiated as part of an operating memorandum, i.e., if the Developer failed to meet certain deadlines , it would be subject to paying the City liquidated damages.

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
Under
Public Resources Code § 21166, the Development Agreement Amendment does not require additional environmental review.

The D
eveloper previously paid $3,900,000 of Public Facility improvement fees .

Additionally, the Developer paid $3,100,000 of the total $4,000,000 for the Affordable Agreement Housing In-Lieu Fee. The In- Lieu Fees were deposited into the City’s Local Housing Fund for use to build, improve, and/or preserve the supply of affordable senior housing in the City. However, the remaining In- Lieu Fee of $900,000 will be paid at the time building permits are issued for the 138-unit senior development.

For
additional details about the proposed Development Agreement Amendment , including its consistency with the City’s General Plan, Simi Valley Municipal Code, and consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act, please refer to Resolution No.

SVPC 11-2025 in Exhibit 1 (Planning Commission Package).

The f
ollowing alternatives are available to the City Council:

1. Intr
oduce Ordinance No. 1364 approving Development Agreement Amendment No. DA-2025-0001 (DA-04-01 AMD#05) to allow a five-year time extension;

2. Intr
oduce Ordinance No. 1364 approving Development Agreement Amendment No. DA-2025-0001 (DA-04-01 AMD#05) to allow for a different time extension;

3. Modi
fy or not introduce an ordinance; or

4. Pr
ovide staff with other direction.

The C
ity Manager and City Attorney recommend Alternative No. 1.

SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION
I m
ove to introduce Ordinance No. 1364 approving Development Agreement Amendment No. DA-2025-0001 (DA-04-01 AMD#05) to allow a five-year time extension. 19 SUMMARY
The Dev
eloper seeks five-year time extension to the Development Agreement for the project known as Runkle Canyon/Woodlands. The five- year time extension will extend the term to July 10, 2030, while a two-year time extension will allow it to expire on July 10, 2027. The Project is generally complete, though c onstruction is still pending for 25 custom homes, 138 senior condominiums, and a senior recreation facility . The Time Extension will not affect the previously approved subdivision location, infrastructure improvements, and the number of dwelling units, residential density, or other design of the approved project.

Follo
wing the June 18, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission upon hearing public testimony recommends that the City Council introduce an ordinance (page 7) approving Development Agreement Amendment No. DA -2021-0001 to allow a two-year time extension with construction benchmarks.
_________
___________________________
Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director
INDEX Page
Publi
c Hearing Procedure………………………………………………………….…......5
Ordinance No. 1364 for DA-2025-001 (DA-04-01, AMD #05)………………………...7 Exhibit 1 – Planning Commission Package……………………………………………17 Resol
ution No. SVPC-11-2025
June 18, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
June 18, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report
June 18, 2025 Supplemental Staff Report
Additional Correspondence
20 EXHIBIT 1
Planning Commission Package
DA-2025-0001
June 18, 2025
INDEX
Resolution No. SVPC-11-2025
June 18, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
June 18, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report
June 18, 2025 Supplemental Staff Report
Additional Correspondence
**The public hearing procedure, Attachment A- NOE, and draft resolutions have been omitted from this Exhibit to avoid du
plication
21 22
23 24
25 26

EXHIBIT A

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon
Road
Simi Valley, California 93063
Attn: City Clerk
______________________________________________________________________ Space above this line for Recorder’s Use Only
Exemp
t from the payment of a recording fee pursuant to Government Code Sections 6103 and 27383.

FIFTH AMENDMENT TO FOURTH AMENDED AND RESTATED
DEVELO

PMENT AGREEMENT
[DA-2025-0001 (DA-04-01 AMD#05)] BETWEEN THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

AND RUNKLE CANYON, LLC
This Fifth Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Fourth Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DA-04-01 AMD#05 or the “Runkle Canyon Development Agreement”) is entered into on _________________, 2025, by and between the CITY OF SIMI VALLEY, a municipal corporation (“City”), and RUNKLE CANYON, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company and any successors or assigns (“Developer”). All capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Runkle Canyon Development Agreement. The Parties agree as follows:

SECTION 1: RECITALS. This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts and objectives:
a. On May 10, 2004, the Simi Valley City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1058 approving Development Agreement No. DA-04-01 (the “Development Agreement”). The Development Agreement was subsequently amended on August 13, 2012 (Ordinance No. 1197); August 29, 2016 (Ordinance No. 1261); March 11, 2019 (Ordinance No. 1295); and June 13, 2022 (Ordinance No. 1339).

The Development Agreement will expire on June 10, 2025 (the “Expiration Date”); b. City and Developer seek to extend the Expiration Date for five years to facilitate the buildout of the remaining estate homes and the senior housing site; c. Developer proposes no physical changes to the Project. Accordingly, no additional environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (see, Public Resources Code § 21166);
10 27
d. Extending the Expiration Date requires the Parties’ continued performance of the conceptual terms set forth in the letter agreement between City and Developer dated March 31, 2025 that is attached as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 2: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3. The Development Agreement is amended as follows:

A. Section 3 (Term) of the Development Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“The Term of this Agreement ends June 10, 2030 pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. ____. The Term was established by the Parties as a reasonable estimate of the time required to carry out the Project, develop the Property and obtain the public benefits of the Project and the Agreement. City finds that a term of such duration is reasonably necessary to assure City of the realization of the public benefits from the Project. In establishing and agreeing to such term, City has determined that this Agreement incorporates sufficient provisions to permit City to monitor adequately and respond to changing circumstances and conditions in granting permits and approvals and undertaking actions to carry out the Project.”
SECTION 3: INTEGRATION. This Amendment to the Development Agreement reflects the complete understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. To the extent this Amendment conflicts with the Development Agreement, this Amendment supersedes the Development Agreement. In all other respects, the parties hereto re- affirm and ratify all other provisions of the Development Agreement. From and after the date of this Amendment, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it means the Development Agreement, as amended. This Fifth Amendment to the Development Agreement must be recorded in the Official Records of the County of Ventura upon its full execution and the effective date of the Ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City to approve this Amendment.

SECTION 4: COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all such counterparts, when taken together, shall constitute one agreement.

SECTION 5: SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Amendment to the Development Agreement shall be held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby, unless the court shall specifically find that the invalid part is so fundamental and essential to the understanding of the parties that the entire Agreement is invalidated.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
11 28

SIGNATURE PAGE
TO

FIFTH AMENDMENT
TO

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Developer have signed this Amendment, by and through the signatures of their authorized representatives as of the day and year first hereinabove written.

Attest: City of Simi Valley,
A Municipal Corporation
By:

Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley
Approved as to Form: Runkle Canyon, LLC
A Delaware Limited Liability Company
____________ By: ______
Algeria R. Ford, Esq., City Attorney Keltie Cole, Authorized Agent Approved as to Content:

Samantha C. Argabrite,
City Manager
Carolyn Johnson
Administrative Services Director
Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director
12 29
March 31, 2025
Karl Berger, Esq.,
City Attorney’s Office

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Re: Buildout of Runkle Canyon Project
Dear Karl:

Based on our recent discussions and exchange of emails, you requested that we prepare a letter agreement documenting the agreed process for the City of Simi Valley (“City”) and Runkle Canyon, LLC (“Developer”) to proceed with the necessary permitting and approvals for the remaining buildout of the Runkle Canyon project (“Project”). This letter sets forth our understanding of the approach we have discussed and conceptually agreed upon, and if acceptable to the City, please so confirm where indicated below.

1. Replacement SIA’s and Bonding: The parties will promptly finalize and execute the Replacement SIAs, attached hereto as Exhibit A, providing for, among other things, the preservation of the existing bonds for the Project until a third-party assessment process is completed (see discussion below). At that time, the existing bonds can be replaced and/or modified such that the bonds are sufficient to cover the agreed upon costs to complete the outstanding work for all public improvements covered by the Replacement SIAs. Although we believe the existing bonding exceeds the remaining costs to complete, Developer will accept the results of the objective process outlined below and will adjust the bond amount if needed. Similarly, the City will accept the results of the objective process and will decrease the bond amount if appropriate or exonerate the bond.

2. Assessment of Existing Public Improvements: Developer shall retain a new third-party civil engineer with no previous involvement in the Project to thoroughly assess the condition of all public improvements within the Project and prepare a report with costs to complete all remaining work, which report Developer will submit to the City. The City shall retain a new third-party civil 13 30
engineer with no previous or current involvement in the Project to review the assessment and advise the City regarding the adequacy and accuracy of the report. If there are any engineering issues or disagreements between the two aforementioned civil engineers with regard to the assessment of the condition of all public improvements within the Project and/or costs to complete remaining work that they are unable to resolve, then the respective engineers shall select another independent civil engineer to be the arbiter of such engineering issues or disagreements. At the completion of this process, the City shall accept all public improvements determined to be completed in accordance with the City-approved plans. The parties shall agree on a bond exoneration punch list of work required to complete or repair the remaining existing public improvements (the “Punch List”).

Developer shall then diligently pursue completion of the mutually agreed Punch List work. Developer will provide written notice to City of completed Punch List work, and City shall promptly inspect the work to confirm the repairs have been completed. Upon City confirmation that the Punch List work is satisfactorily completed, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, the City shall then exonerate the bonds using commercially reasonable efforts but not more than 3 months after completion of the Punch List work is confirmed.

3. Release and Replacement of Existing Bonding. In addition to the Punch List work for the existing public improvements described in paragraph 2 above, the parties shall also agree upon a list of outstanding work required to complete all remaining public improvements covered by the Replacement SIAs, using the independent third-party engineering process described above (the “Outstanding Work”). Developer’s engineer shall prepare an updated estimate of the costs to complete the Outstanding Work and submit same to the City’s third-party engineer for review and approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the two engineers cannot agree on the costs to complete the Outstanding Work, the final costs to complete shall be determined through the process described above using a third civil engineer as arbiter. Upon final determination of the costs to complete the Outstanding Work (the “Remaining Costs”), Developer shall provide the City with replacement bonds in the full amount of the Remaining Costs, and the City shall concurrently release the existing bonds. The parties will cooperate in promptly executing all documents and taking all actions necessary to complete this process.

4. Estate Lots. Immediately upon full execution of this letter agreement the parties will cooperate in finalizing City review, processing and approval of those certain house plans previously submitted for four of the estate lots within the Project and listed on the permit reports attached as Exhibit B hereto (which will occur concurrently with finalizing and obtaining City Council approval of the Replacement SIA’s). The parties will also meet within the next 30 days to discuss and agree upon the best approach for plan review and permit issuance for the remaining estate lots, in a good faith effort by both parties to facilitate buildout of the estate lots as promptly as reasonably practicable.

5. Senior Housing Units. The parties will meet within the next 30 days to decide on the design and approval path for the senior site. The approved plan is designed under the 2019 Building Code and the plans are being revised to comply with the current codes along with minor accompanying revisions The parties will work in good faith to determine a feasible path toward successful buildout and sale of the senior housing units, including an administrative approval of the proposed plan revisions (subject to City concurrence that the revisions are minor and appropriate). 14 31

6. Development Agreement. The Development Agreement for the Project (DA-04-01, as amended) (“Development Agreement”) currently expires on or about July 10, 2025, and must be extended to facilitate buildout of the Project. The parties agree to cooperate in good faith to, as soon as possible, process and take to the City Council for action a reasonable extension of the Development Agreement to facilitate buildout of the remaining estate homes and senior housing site, which extension shall be subject to the parties continuing performance of the conceptual terms set forth in this letter.

7. Working Group Meeting. The parties agree to participate in an in-person working group meeting to resolve any disagreements or other challenges that may be encountered in completing Project buildout pursuant to the terms set forth in this letter agreement. The working group shall consist of at least the following participants: the Division President, project manager and attorney for the Developer, as well as the City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Public Works Director, and the outside third-party engineer retained by the City for the Project. The working group will meet in April 2025 and monthly thereafter for as long as reasonably necessary to carry out the terms of this letter agreement.

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in determining this path forward toward the successful buildout of the Project. If these terms are acceptable to the City, please so indicate below.

Very truly yours,
James D. Vaughn
Partner

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
By: ___________________________
Algeria R. Ford, Esq.,
Simi Valley City Attorney
15 32
MI

NUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION

MOBILE HOME RENT MEDIATION BOARD

TREE ADVISORY BOARD
Ci
ty Council Chamber June 18, 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 Mann, Rice, and Tolson; Vice Chairperson Kennedy; Chairperson Christmann

Absent: None

4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the agenda as submitted.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – May 14, 2025
It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the minutes as submitted.

6. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT
Chairperson Christmann had a conflict of interest with agenda item 11.A.1.

7. PUBLIC STATEMENTS – None

8. CORRESPONDENCE
Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson stated that one supplemental report for agenda item 11.A.1 was submitted, a letter in support from Cristina Huerta Boykins. Copies for the public were provided at the dais, as well as at the table in the lobby. A second correspondence was received from Doreen Stoutland regarding agenda item 11.A.1, which was provided to the Commission at the meeting.
33 Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 2 June 18, 2025

9. C
ONSENT CALENDAR – None

10. 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
It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the item to a date uncertain.

11. NEW BUSINESS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. DA-2025-0001; Runkle Canyon, LLC: To consider an Amendment to the Runkle Canyon Development Agreement DA-2025-0001 (DA 04-01 AMD#05) to allow a five-year time extension to allow for the completion of the Runkle Canyon/Woodlands project; located at the southern terminuses of Sequoia, Talbert, Watson, and Comet Avenues, and High Point Place and Hazelnut Court.

Staff Contact: Naren Gunasekera
(805) 583-6863
Chairperson Christmann recused herself from this item. Vice Chairperson Kennedy chaired this agenda item.

Commissioner Rice stated they had ex parte communication with Ms. Stoutland and Howard Roth through email.

Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson gave a brief overview of the project.

Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator Naren Gunasekera gave a presentation of the staff report.
34 Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 3 June 18, 2025
Vi
ce Chairperson Kennedy asked the mix of units and how many are affordable units for the senior condominiums. Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator Naren Gunasekera stated he is not sure about the mix of units, and the affordable units were bought out by the developer.

Commissioner Tolson asked when the first application came in for this project.

Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator Naren Gunasekera stated that the first application came in 2001, and the project was approved in 2005. Commissioner Tolson asked how many extensions there have been. Mr. Gunasekera stated that this extension will be the fifth.

Vice Chairperson Kennedy asked if any prior extension had been denied. Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator Naren Gunasekera stated that none of the extensions have been denied; if they were denied, the agreements and entitlements would have expired, and the applicant wouldn’t be able to ask for another extension. Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson stated that the last extension requested was for five years, but the Planning Commission recommended three years, and the City Council approved three years.

Vice Chairperson Kennedy opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.

Representative James Vaughn gave a brief presentation about the project.

Vice Chairperson Kennedy asked about the number of mixed units for the Senior Condominiums. Representative James Vaughn stated that he does not know due to the project being approved a long time ago. Mr. Vaughn also stated that the applicant brought a new design for the project, but it was denied, and the applicant has decided to build out as approved.

Commissioner Tolson asked what has been built since the last extension was granted in 2022. Representative Vaugh stated no new units have been built; they have been updating the old plans to meet the new building codes and will have approvals on the plans for senior units, senior recreational center, and the first batch of estate homes this year. Commissioner Tolson asked if anything had physically been built in the last three years. My. Vaughn stated that nothing has been built due to the plans not being approved, but some infrastructure repairs have been done. Commissioner Tolson inquired when the last Homeowners Association (HOA) meeting occurred. Representative James Vaughn stated the project manager is the one who has the meetings and believes one has happened in the last 60-90 days.

Commissioner Rice asked about the reason for the delay in the project. Mr.

Vaughn stated that it is not a cost issue but due to the project redesign being rejected and the last amendment being shortened from five years to three they knew it wouldn’t be enough time, and the plans being redesigned and reviewed during that time, the developer plans on finishing this as efficiently as possible. 35 Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 4 June 18, 2025
Com
missioner Tolson asked if the senior recreational center had been redesigned.

Mr. Vaughn stated that the façade was updated, but mainly the updates are for the solar requirements, overall it will be the same design. Commissioner Tolson asked if the estate homes have been redesigned. Mr. Vaughn stated they were originally going to be custom homes and now they are going to be built by the developer, four of them can be built a year and they almost have the final sign offs for those four lots to be built, then the remaining lots will be approved under a single Planned Development Permit. Tolson asked if 25 lots will be done in five years. Mr. Vaughn stated yes.

Vice Chairperson Kennedy asked if Lennar and KB Homes are still the builders for this project. Mr. Vaugh stated they are, Runkle Canyon is a Limited Liability Company (LLC) made up of both companies. Vice Chairperson Kennedy asked if the estate lots are being built by one and the senior housing being built by the other builder. Mr. Vaughn stated he does not know who will be building which building.

The following submitted a speaker card wishing to speak in opposition of the project:
• Jason Christmann
• Michael Napal
The following submitted a speaker card wishing to speak in support of the project:
• Royce Cadwell
• Tim Sample
The following submitted a speaker card wishing to speak (did not indicate support or opposition.
• Al Alvarez
Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator Naren Gunasekera stated that in response to the Vice Chairperson’s previous question, there are 26 senior condominium buildings to include: 3 one-story duplexes, 13 two-story fourplexes, and 10 two- story eightplexes. Vice Chairperson Kennedy asked how many parking spot are allotted for the senior condominiums and recreational center. Mr. Gunasekera stated that the condominiums have 296 parking spaces. Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson added that the spaces include one and two-car garages, and the senior center has a parking lot as well.

Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator Naren Gunasekera referred to a slide for the project's submittal dates and resubmittals for the senior condominiums and senior center:
• June 5, 2013 – Senior Condos approved by Planning Commission • April 22, 2015 – Senior recreation center approved by Planning Commission 36 Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 5 June 18, 2025
• M
ay 9, 2022 – Last three-year extension for the Development Agreement was granted
• July 13, 2022 – Construction plans for the Senior condos and recreation center application were submitted
• August 31, 2022 – Corrections provided to Applicant
• December, 2023 – Plan check expired with no resubmittal Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator Naren Gunasekera stated that the applicant is close to submitting the administrative action applications required for minor modifications for both buildings in the next few days.

Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson stated that the Deputy Public Works Director is present to answer any questions, and staff can answer any questions the Commissioners may have from comments made by the public.

Vice Chairperson Kennedy asked if the Geotechnical Reports had been submitted.

Deputy Public Works Director Brent Siemer stated that the geotechnical reports will be going to third-party reviewers, including the applicant’s Geotech engineer, as well as the City’s civil engineer, and he would not be seeing the reports directly.

Commissioner Rice asked how long Mr. Siemer believes the process will take. Mr.

Siemer stated some geotechnical needs to be reviewed quicker to certify the pads which he will review and the Geotechnical Engineer will attest to that for the estate homes and for the senior center. Mr. Siemer stated there are concerns with an access road near the Golden State water tank, KB Home does have a report prepared that will be reviewed by both sides, but nothing has been submitted. The western side is having issues. Commissioner Rice asked how long review will take once the reports are submitted. Deputy Public Works Director Brent Siemer stated that the response to Geotechnical reports right now should take one week since they are familiar with the project.

Commissioner Tolson asked if there are any problems with the Senior Center site.

Deputy Public Works Director Brent Siemer stated that the senior center and the remaining sites to build on do not have a history of problems, and once Geotechnical Reports are submitted, it should go quickly.

Vice Chairperson Kennedy asked if a new traffic study needed to be done for this site. Deputy Public Works Director Brent Siemer stated that a new traffic study would not need to be done since the project has funds allocated for traffic improvements if needed.

Representative Nick Biro gave a brief overview of the project’s status.

Commissioner Tolson asked when the last meeting with the HOA was. Nick Biro stated the last HOA meeting was at the end of May.
37 Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 6 June 18, 2025
Vi
ce Chairperson Kennedy asked if the estate lots and the senior development are being built at the same time or at different times. Representative Nick Biro stated that only four estate lots can be built at a time; they will submit the other 21 estate lots to be built, then the senior center will need to go through administrative review and once approved, they will update the plans for review. Vice Chairperson Kennedy asked if the estate lots and the senior center would be constructed concurrently. Mr.Biro stated the four estate lots permits should be ready by August for construction and if they senior site submittal gets approved quickly they will start construction in January. Vice Chairperson Kennedy asked for clarification if the four estate lots get approved, they will submit for the other 21 lots under another application. Nick Biro stated that was correct. Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson stated that the option to submit for all the estate lots under a Planned Development Permit was given to the applicant a while ago, and they chose to submit for four lots instead. Representative Nick Biro stated they chose that path to show progress.

Vice Chairperson Kennedy closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.

Commissioner Mann asked what the extension before 2019 was and if there was any conditions of progress in the extension, or if were the extensions approved with no penalties. Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera deferred to the Assistant City Attorney. Gina Botwinick stated she does not have that information as Senior Assistant City Attorney Karl Berger has been working on it. Commissioner Mann asked if the Commission could add stipulations or penalties to the extension such as having them pay the HOA as the residents are asking for the unapproved lots.

City Attorney Gina Botwinick stated that it is her understanding that the City can take action against the developer for taking too long to build out, but the action available depending on the agreement and our local laws. Commissioner Mann asked if a penalty could be put on the extension to require funds to be paid to the HOA. Per Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera the initial approval was on April 26, 2004 for the original project including the Development Agreement, in 2012 an amendment was approved to extend the project for five years, in 2016 another amendment effecting the affordable housing agreement and also extended the project, in 2019 extension number three was approved, and in 2022 extension number four was approved. Commissioner Mann asked if in the agreements, there was anything about the senior recreational facility having to be built at a certain time or could wait and be build at the end. Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera stated he did not see anything about that and would defer to the City Attorney.

Commissioner Mann asked if the developer has a bond on the entire project.

Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera stated they have Public Works bonds, but he would have to defer those questions to Deputy Public Works Director Brent Siemer. Commissioner Mann stated that that Mr. Vaughn talked about a new bond for the remaining project and he asked if other bonds were still in place. Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera stated his understanding is that there is, but he would have to defer those questions to the City Attorney or Public Works Director Brent Siemer. Commissioner Mann asked why they can only do four custom homes at a time and can do the rest of the lots under a Planned Development Permit. 38 Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 7 June 18, 2025
Pr
incipal Planner/Zoning Administrator Naren Gunasekera stated that only four lots owned by the same person can be developed at a time and the option to do all the estate lots under a Planned Development Permit was provided to them, but now they chose to do the four lots and then do the rest under a Planned Development Permit. Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson stated that this agreement is under the old 2004 zoning rules allowing four lots to be developed by a single developer, while under the current rules no more than one lot can be developed without a Planned Development Permit.

Commissioner Mann asked if there is a long timeframe or huge cost to doing a Planned Development Permit. Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson stated that the applicant chose to apply for the four lots, which are almost approved, and it would be easy to apply for the Planned Development Permit due to the sites already being reviewed by staff, and only the architecture would need to be approved. Commissioner Mann asked if the applicant had applied for the Planned Development Permit. Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Sean Gibson stated the applicant is close but has not applied yet, and Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator Naren Gunasekera confirmed this.

Vice Chairperson Kennedy asked City Attorney how much time would be needed to research Commissioner Mann’s questions. City Attorney Gina Botwinick stated that some of the timeline is laid out in Exhibit C, but she would have to do research when it comes to the penalties. Vice Chairperson Kennedy asked if there a way for a negative incentive. Assistant City Attorney Gina Botwinick suggested a recess to research the questions.

Vice Chairperson reopened the public testimony.

Representative James Vaughn stated in terms of a schedule, page two of the extension under Section 1.D. states “Extending the Expiration Date requires the Parties’ continued performance of the conceptual terms set forth in the letter agreement between City and Developer dated March 31, 2025, that is attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated..” The letter agreement has been worked out with the City Attorney and himself. Mr. Vaugh stated that, unlike the last extension that was granted, this one has added these requirements.

Commissioner Tolson asked if the working group has been meeting as stated in the agreement. Mr. Vaughn stated that he and the City Attorney have been meeting by phone or virtually every two or three weeks, and Mr. Biro is working with staff.

Commissioner Mann asked if a third party had been chosen for the Geotechnical report review. Public Works Director Brent Siemer stated that a third-party engineer has been chosen, but he will not be directly involved with them.

Commissioner Mann asked if the reports have been given to the third-party Geotechnical reviewer. Mr. Siemer stated he cannot speak to the reports, and if they have received them. Assistant City Attorney Gina Botwinick stated she can 39 Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 8 June 18, 2025
look
into that and follow up. Commissioner Mann stated he asked about the report because Mr. Vaughn stated the reports being reviewed were the first hurdle, and Commissioner Mann wanted to know what needs to be done to get over that first hurdle.

Vice Chairperson Kennedy called for a recess.

Vice Chairperson Kennedy resumed the meeting.

The Assistant City Attorney Gina Botwinick started answering questions, under California law there is no legal mechanism to impose penalties in this scenario, the questions regarding HOA dues that are not being paid are a civil issue not a land use matter and the City cannot get involved in that, and the deadlines are not in the agreement, benchmarks can be recommended to City Council but there is no allowance for penalties.

Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson explained the different options the Planning Commission has for their recommendation to the City Council.

The Commission discussed its recommendations for a modification amendment to the Development Agreement.

Commissioners Rice, Mann, and Tolson, and Vice Chairperson Kennedy discussed suggestions for a modification to the Development Agreement Amendment.

Commissioner Mann asked how large the senior recreational center is going to be.

Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator Naren Gunasekera stated the building has a floor area of 2,800 square feet with a multipurpose room, exercise room, kitchen, restrooms, pool, and showers. Vice Chairperson Kenney asked if the Recreation Center will be stand-alone from the senior community. Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Sean Gibson stated the recreational center will be on its own lot.

The Planning Commission came to a consensus to change the recommendation to City Council from a five-year extension to a two-year extension with benchmarks.

Vice Chairperson reopened the Public Testimony.

Michael Napal provided additional comment on the project.

Vice Chairperson Kennedy closed the public testimony.
40 Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 9 June 18, 2025
CO

MMISSIONER TOLSON MOVED TO ADOPT A

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY RECOMMENDING TO

THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN

AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT DA-2025-0001 (DA-04-01 AMD#05) TO

ALLOW A TWO-YEAR TIME EXTENSION WITH

CONSTRUCTION BENCHMARKS FOR THE

RUNKLE CANYON/WOODLANDS PROJECT

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUSES OF

SEQUOIA, TALBERT, WATSON, AND COMET

AVENUES, AND HIGH POINT PLACE AND

HAZELNUT COURT
Commissioner Rice seconded the motion.

AYES: Commissioners Mann, Rice, and Tolson;
Vice Chairperson Kennedy
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Chairperson
There is no appeal period.

B. OTHER – None

12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
A. STAFF – None
B. PLANNING COMMISSION – None
C. MOBILE HOME RENT MEDIATION BOARD – None
D. TREE ADVISORY BOARD – None
41 Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 10 June 18, 2025

13. AD

JOURNMENT
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting is on August 13, 2025.

Minutes prepared by:

Nikolette Baer
42 DA20250001 PC Staff Report (ngb)

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
June 18, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sean Gibson, Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner SUBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA -2025-0001 (DA -04-01 AMD#0 5) TO

ALLOW A FIVE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR THE RUNKLE

CANYON/WOODLANDS PROJECT LOCATED AT THE SOUTH ERN

TERMINUSES OF SEQUOIA, TALBERT, W ATSON, AND COMET

AVENUES, AND HIGH POINT PLACE AND HAZELNUT COURT

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution (page 6) recommending that the City Council approve a five-year extension for Development Agreement No. DA-2025-0001 (DA-04-01 AMD#05).

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The City Council adopted the Runkle Canyon/Woodlands Specific Plan (the “Project”) in 2004. Once completed, the Project will contain 461 dwelling units along with other amenities. Among other approvals, the Project includes a Development Agreement.

Since first becoming effective in 2004, the Development Agreement was extended several times; it was last extended for three years in 2022. While the Project is generally complete, there are still 25 custom home lots, 138 attached senior condominiums, and a senior recreation facility pending construction.

The original plans for these outstanding facilities expired in 2023. Efforts to renew the plans and redesign the facilities began in September 2024 and are ongoing.

On May 1, 2025, the Applicant informed the City that they intended to apply for a Planned Development Permit for 21 custom homes; the other four custom homes are being considered for building permits.

The Applicant seeks to extend the Development Agreement term by an additional five years to complete construction of the Project. This would extend the term to June 10, 2030. A completed application seeking this extension was filed before the expiration of the current term.

As proposed, the amendment does not affect the previously approved subdivision location, infrastructure improvements, and the number of dwelling units, residential density, or other design aspects of the approved project. Under Public Resources Code AGENDA ITEM NO.

11.A.1.
43 CASE NO.: DA-2025-0001
APPLICANT: Runkle Canyon, LLC
2 DA20250001 PC Staff Report (ngb)
§ 21166, the Development Agreement Amendment does not require additional environmental review.

As part of the payment obligations within the Development Agreement, the Applicant has paid all of the Public Facility Payments of $3,900,000. These fees were approved to be used for public road improvements , public services for the senior center activities, maintenance and operations, public dial-a-ride services, public bus shelters, and/or public community amenities. Additionally, the Applicant has paid $3,100,000 of the required $4,000,000 for the Affordable Agreement Housing In -Lieu Fee to satisfy the affordable housing obligations for the development. The In -Lieu Fees went into the City’s Local Housing Fund for use to build, improve, and/or preserve the supply of affordable senior housing in the City. However, the remaining In-Lieu Fee of $900,000 will be paid at the time the Zoning Clearance is issued for the 138-unit senior development.

If the Development Agreement expires and the Applicant has not completed the Project in the Development Agreement, t hen the Applicant would be required to start over, i.e., seek new entitlements, for all outstanding facilities.

Separate from the Development Agreement, Runkle Canyon, LLC will be renewing a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA ) with the City and signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to guarantee construction of public improvements associated with the project’s subdivision map for Tract 5364. The secured agreements require the Applicant to install and complete, at its sole expense, all improvement work (Improvements) for the subdivision, such as construction of the street, sewer, and drainage systems. The Applicant may only request inspection and acceptance by the City of all required improvements upon completion of the development. There have been ongoing concerns with the current condition of some of the improvements based on site issues, including slope and road failures. The Applicant is required to work with the City to alleviate these issues to the City’s satisfaction. Until all elements of the Development Agreement are completed, all shortcomings on the site have been addressed, and all improvements have been accepted by the City, any associated SIAs and bonds must remain in place to protect the City and future buyers of senior condominiums and lots. No additional action is required by the Planning Commission as to the SIAs.

INDEX Page
Public Hearing Procedure .....................................................................................3 Resolution .............................................................................................................5 Exhibit A: Fifth Amendment to F ourth Amended and Restated Development Agreement………………………………………………………………….…………10
Exhibit 1 – Applicant request for Development Agreement extension Exhibit 2 – Ordinance No. 1339 for DA-2021-001
44 CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM

SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA ITEM NO.

11. A. 1.

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

June 18, 2025
Planning Comr~ssion
Sean Gibso~ puty Environmental Services Director/City Planner SUPPLEMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 11.A.1: TO

CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA-
2025-0001 (DA-04-01 AMD#05) TO ALLOW A FIVE-YEAR TIME

EXTENSION FOR THE RUNKLE CANYON/WOODLANDS PROJECT

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUSES OF SEQUOIA, TALBERT,

WATSON, AND COMET AVENUES, AND HIGH POINT PLACE AND

HAZELNUT COURT
Subsequent to the preparation of the staff report for the above item, staff has received the attached public comment.

Attachment:

Exhibit 1 - Email from Cristina Huerta Boykins - Dated June 16, 2025 S-1
DA20250001 Supplemental (ngb)
45 1
Naren Gunasekera
From:

Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 4:27 PM
To: planningcomments
Subject: The Woodlands - Upcoming hearing on 6/18
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.

Hello,
I wanted to write to you regarding the upcom
ing hearing on 6/18 for the Woodlands where the KB/Lennar joint venture plan to request another 5 years to complete their project. Obviously i'm sure you are aware that our stance as homeowners would be for them to finish this project ASAP because each year we are losing around $540,000 in HOA dues that we could have owners paying if the homes were built already. This would allow for us current owners to save money every single month because our dues would drop if we had this income. Instead, we are having to over pay every single month while the venture is dragging their feet to complete the project. Each time we get an update at our HOA meetings from their representative, they claim they are slowly getting things going but they always seem to blame it on the city of not approving their submittals fast enough. As a homeowner in The Woodlands, if I had any say in what would happen, here is my request:

Grant their extension, even though I'm very reluctant about this. They need to finish this project.

Expedite the approval/denial process within the city so that they can hurry up and get going on this project. As I understand it, there always seems to be something extra they are trying to get approved and holding it over the cities head to approve everything. If someone can be dedicated to this project at the city so that we can get it completed, that would also make the city a lot of revenue in property taxes. There is a huge benefit to the city as well to complete this project. If we were able to help them push this project thru quicker, it would really help all of us existing owners.

Put some sort of realistic stipulation on how many homes they need to complete each year. If those stipulations are not met/completed, they should have to start paying dues on those homes that are not complete. So if after 5 year extension, they haven't completed any homes like in the past, they need to pay the dues on the homes that are not completed. This would require the city approving them to build more than 4 homes at a time because there is no way they can build out 167 homes at 4 per year (or whatever the current limits are) and complete it in 5 years. I know this has to be possible because we saw the project on Cochran and Galena complete all at the same time so there has to be a way for this to happen. With the cities help or suggestions to the builders, there can be a plan put in place for them to complete this.

We really need the cities help with this. Not only to help with the process but to enforce the rules in some way to get this completed. These companies are building communities all over the place right now without any issues. There has to be a way to make them complete this project and be done with it. It is unfortunate that it seems to be a common issue here in simi that it takes so long for our city to approve things such as new businesses etc. It seems to be why a lot of businesses and builders don't want to come and develop here in 46 2
simi. I truly feel there has to be a way to change that. I'm open to helping with whatever needs to be done to help complete this project.

Any help the planning commission can provide would be super helpful for us.

Thank you,
Cristina Huerta Boykins
47 48
49