PART 2 - Staff Report — Simi Valley City Council, August 10, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

Lost Canyons Drive
Key Map
Tapo Canyon Road
A-2 COMMUNITY LAKE - VISUAL AMENITY
Natural grasses mix (typical) Natural grasses mix (typical) Slope planting and
lots with lake view
Lots with lake view
Lots with lake view
Community Lake -
Visual Amenity
Pedestrian Connection
506
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 9 ends

Lost Canyons Drive
Key Map
Tapo Canyon Road
Large accent trees to signify
entry
Shaded park paths and benches
and tables throughout
Landscaped park trails
Perimeter wall
Lawn gathering space
Internal trail connection to Recreation
Center and, through the pedestrian
access gate, to the Community Trail/
Sidewalk along Lost Canyons Drive
leading to trails in Dry Canyon to the
West and Tapo Canyon to the East
Pedestrian access gate
Shaded walking path with
pop-outs for benches
and exercise equipment
throughout park
A-3 ENTRANCE PARK CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE/DESIGN
Lost Canyons Drive
507
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 10 ends

Lost Canyons Drive
Key Map
Tapo Canyon Road
Natural grasses mix (typical) Example access gate
Access gate
Off path area with
bench or table
A-4 CREEK PARK CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE/DESIGN
Trees along trails in park for shade
Large trees on designated path
508
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 11 ends

Lost Canyons Drive
Key Map
Tapo Canyon Road
Passive gathering spaces
Large Shade Trees
Shaded walking path with
pop-outs for benches
and exercise equipment
throughout park
A-5 OVERLOOK PARK CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE/DESIGN
Lost Canyons Drive
Internal Roads
Park benches along trails
Landscaped park trails
Typical play area
509
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 12 ends

Lost Canyons Drive
Key Map
Tapo Canyon Road
Access gate
Benches along trails
Example landscaped pedestrian passageway
Example landscaped pedestrian passageway
Large accent trees on designated path
A-6 PASSAGE PARK WITH TRAIL ACCESS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE/DESIGN 510
Existing Trees
New Large Trees forming
Tunnel Effect
Oak, Sycamore, Olive
Residential Card Reader
Drainage
Faux Bridge Culvert
Brick Accent
20’ Fire Access
Existing Specimen Oak
Drifts of Mixed Accent
Grasses with Colorful
Shrub Areas

LOST CANYONS DRIVE
Residential Entry Gate
8’ maximum height
Residential Exit Gate
8’ maximum height
Iconic Pilaster with
Remnant Dry Laid Wall as
subtle Entry Monumentation
14’ maximum height
Entry Gate with Mixed Accent Grasses
Culvert under Road
Integrate Existing Oak Trees where feasible Faux Bridge PAGE 8
Tapo Canyon - South Entry 2B-4
REMOVED 511
Lost Canyons Drive
Tree Canopy Trimmed to Create
“Green Tunnel” Entry Planting
Remnant Dry Laid
Wall with Rustic
Ranch Fence
Remnant Dry Laid Wall
with Rustic Ranch Fence
Proposed Ranch Fencing:
36” - 48”. Entry Monument
Walls Heights may vary with
up to 8’ maximum height
Pedestrian Sidewalk
per Specific Plan with Shade
Structure
Unmanned Faux Gate Monumentation
per Specific Plan Design Guidelines
Proposed Accessory Structures for Entry
Monumentation: 8’ - 12’ proposed
Up to 14’ maximum height
Pedestrian Trail per
Specific Plan
Pilaster shall not exceed
14’ maximum height
(Residential Zoning)
Mixed Grasses at Entry Shade Structure for Pedestrian Sidewalk PAGE 6
Principal Entry - Lost Canyons Drive / Tapo Canyon Road (Elevation) 2B-2 REMOVED 512
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 13 ends

Lost Canyons Drive
Key Map
Tapo Canyon Road
B-1 TAPO CANYON ROAD/LOST CANYONS DRIVE ENTRY
Large vertical trees
to signify entry
Large vertical trees to signify entry
Pedestrian Sidewalk Per
Specific Plan with Shade Structure
Rock Wall
Max 5’ Height
Pilasters shall not exceed
14 maximum height
(residential Zoning)
Bike Lane Bike Lane
Tree Canopy Trimmed to Create
“Green Tunnel” Entry Planting
Unmanned Faux Gate Monumentation per
Specific Plan Design Guidelines Proposed
Accessory Structures for Entry Monumentation:
8’-12’ Proposed up to 14’ max height
Conceptual Entrance Elevation on Lost Canyons Drive
Lost Canyons DriveLost Canyons Drive
513
Building Envelope
Entry Gates pulled
thru Saddle to allow
for turn around and
Gate Clearance
Residential Card
Reader
Stacking for 7 Cars
Drifts of Mixed Accent
Grasses with Colorful
Shrub Areas
20’ Fire Access
New Large Trees
Oak, Olive,Pepper,
Sycamore

LOST CANYONS DRIVE
Residential Exit Gate
8’ maximum height
Residential Entry Gate
8’ maximum height
Iconic Pilaster
(14’ maximum height) with
Remnant Dry Laid Wall as
subtle Entry Monumentation
Drifts of Mixed Accent Grasses
with Colorful Shrub Areas
Large Vertical Trees
Iconic Pilaster
Accent Grasses
PAGE 7
Tapo Canyon - North Entry 2B-3
REMOVED 514
Manned Guardhouse Elevation Character, Scale May Vary Split Rail Accent Fence Large Trees
Residential Card
Reader
Mixed Accent Grass
Drifts with Small
Areas of Shrub Color
Club House Entry
Stone Pillar with Dry
Laid Stone Wall 36”
Stone Pillar
Dry Laid Stone Wall
Club Parking
Oak Tree
Exit
Visitors
Residents
1 Way Club Access
with Gate
Accent Trees
Native Shrub Groupings
Club House
Accent Trees

LOST CANYONS DRIVE
Water
Quality
Basin
14’ maximum height
Stone Pillar with
Dry Laid Stone Wall
36” - 48”
Proposed 36” - 48”
Ranch Fence (Typ.)
Stone Pillar with
Dry Laid Stone Wall
36” - 48”
Proposed 36” - 48”
Ranch Fence
Residential
Entry/Exit Gates
8’ maximum height
Manned
Guardhouse
26’ max.
height
PAGE 9
Village Core Area Entry 2B-5
REMOVED 515
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 14 ends

Lost Canyons Drive
Key Map
Tapo Canyon Road
Large accent trees Drifts of mixed accent grasses
with colorful shrub areas
Pump House Station
and parking
Example masonry wall - decorative
B-2 LOST CANYONS DRIVE EAST ENTRY (CONCEPTUAL)
Lost Canyons DriveLost Canyons Drive
North bound
right lane turn in
Electronic gates
Perimeter wall
516
Mixed Accent Grass Drifts with
Small Areas of Shrub Color
Large Screening Trees
Residential Card
Reader

LOST CANYONS DRIVE
Accent Trees
Large Screening Trees
Stone Pillars at Entry
14’ maximum height
Residential Entry
and Exit Gates
8’ maximum height
Large Screening Trees
Stone Pilaster
as Light Fixture
Colorful Accent Grasses
PAGE 10
Dry Canyon Entry 2B-6
REMOVED 517
Lost Canyons Drive
Tapo Canyon Road
Ditch Road / Presidio EVA (Tapo
Canyon S)
Exhibit 2C-1
Lost Canyons Drive EVA
(Village Core)
Exhibit 2C-2
Augmented
Hydroseed with Trees
and Shrubs
Augmented Hydroseed
with Trees and Shrubs
Residential Lots
Modified Roundabout to
serve as Turn-Around with
Landscape Screening
Opportunity
EVA Gate EVA Gate
PAGE 14
Anderson Road EVA (Dry Canyon) 2C-3
Potential EVA Gate Locations*
Existing Wind Row
* Final EVA Gate location TBD in consultation
with the Ventura County Fire Department
Accent Grasses
PAGE 12
Ditch Road / Presidio Drive EVA (Tapo Canyon South) 2C-1

DITCH ROAD
Wind Row
EVA Gate
Screening Trees
EVA Gate
Village Core EVA Location Map
Accent Grasses
Accent Grasses
PAGE 13
Lost Canyons Drive EVA (Village Core) 2C-2
Anderson Road EVA (Dry Canyon)
Exhibit 2C-3
PAGE 11
EVA Key Map 2C-i
REMOVED 518
EVA Gate
Screening Trees
EVA Gate
Village Core EVA Location Map
Accent Grasses
Accent Grasses
PAGE 13
Lost Canyons Drive EVA (Village Core) 2C-2
REMOVED 519
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 15 ends

Lost Canyons Drive
Key Map
Tapo Canyon Road
Pedestrian Connection to
Community Trail along
Lost Canyons Dr
B-3 LOST CANYONS DRIVE MAIN ENTRY (CONCEPTUAL)
Lost Canyons Drive
Electronic gates
precedent imagery
Landscaped divider
Unmanned
Guardhouse
Accent grasses
Vertical trees to signify project area
entry
Perimeter wall
520
Potential EVA Gate Locations*
Existing Wind Row
* Final EVA Gate location TBD in consultation
with the Ventura County Fire Department
Accent Grasses
PAGE 12
Ditch Road / Presidio Drive EVA (Tapo Canyon South) 2C-1

DITCH ROAD
Wind Row
REMOVED 521
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 16 ends

Key Map
B-4 DITCH ROAD RESIDENTIAL LOT (CONCEPTUAL)
Single lot off Ditch Road in the
southern most portion of the
specific plan area. Site subject to
Fuel Modification requirements. Ditch Road
Private access drive
Fire Turnout
Existing Access Easement
Mixed Grasses
522
Augmented
Hydroseed with Trees
and Shrubs
Augmented Hydroseed
with Trees and Shrubs
Residential Lots
Modified Roundabout to
serve as Turn-Around with
Landscape Screening
Opportunity
EVA Gate
EVA Gate
PAGE 14
Anderson Road EVA (Dry Canyon) 2C-3
REMOVED 523
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 17 ends

Key Map
Single lot off Anderson Road in
the southern most portion of the
specific plan area. Site subject to
Fuel Modification requirements.

Mixed Grasses
B-5 ANDERSON ROAD RESIDENTIAL LOT
Anderson Road
Private access drive
Regional Trail
524
PAGE 15
Tapo Canyon Road Landscape 2D-1
Theme Trees
See Lost Canyons Entry
Exhibits 2B-1 and 2B-2
Ranch Fence
Small Groupings of
Trees, Shrubs & Grasses
Median Planting of Small
Trees, Shrubs and Mixed
Grasses in Drifts
Remnant Ranch Fence
“Gateway” Tree and
Shrub Planting
Drifts of Mixed Shrubs
and Native Grasses
Random Tree and
Shrub Planting
Drifts of Mixed Shrubs and Native Grasses

LOST CANYONS
DRIVE

TAPO CANYON ROAD
Native Plant Hydroseed
on Manufactured Slope
Gradual Increase in planting
density approaching project entry
Concept Plan View
Concept Birds-Eye View
REMOVED 525
Water
Quality
Basin
Drifts of Mixed Accent Grasses
with Colorful Shrub Areas
Building Envelope
Sidewalk on Outboard Side
of ROW provides Maximum
Planting Width next to Road

LOST CANYONS DRIVE
Large Trees
Oak, Olive, Pepper,
Sycamore
Natural Grass
Hydroseed Mix
on Slopes
Small Accent Trees
Ceanothus, Bottlebrush,
Revegetated Native Manzanita
Larger Vertical Trees
Hydroseeded Slope Smaller Accent Trees
Sidewalks and
Pedestrian Trails edged
with Natural Grasses
PAGE 16
Lost Canyons Drive Landscape 2D-2
(Typical)
REMOVED 526
Mixed Shrubs
Mixed Shrubs
Accent Grasses
PAGE 17
Lost Canyons Drive Landscape 2D-3
Theme Trees
Small Groupings of
Trees, Shrubs & Grasses
Drifts of Mixed Shrubs
and Grasses that are
acceptable within the
Fuel Modification Palette
Acceptable Fuel
Modification
Plant Material on
Manufactured Slope
REMOVED 527
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 18 ends

Lost Canyons Drive
Key Map
Tapo Canyon Road
Large accent trees
Lost Canyons Drive
Accent Grasses and Native
Plants
Natural grasses mix (typical)
C-1 LOST CANYONS DRIVE LANDSCAPE (TYPICAL)
Sidewalk
528
Natural Hydroseed
Accent Trees
Large Trees
Mixed Accent Grass Drifts wth
Areas of Shrub Color
Graded Terrace with Shrub
and Tree Planting
Natural Hydroseed
Shrubs on Terraced Slope
Mixed Accent Grasses
Note: See Tract Map
for delineation of HOA
Common Area
Large Accent Trees
Slope Planting
Mixed Grasses
Accent Trees
PAGE 20
Terraced Slope Landscape 2D-6
REMOVED 529
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 19 ends

Lost Canyons Drive
Key Map
Tapo Canyon Road
Mixed grasses
Slope planting
Large accent trees
C-2 TERRACED SLOPE TYPICAL LANDSCAPE
Concept Section
Internal road
Slope planting and landscape,
not within lot lines/property
boundaries to be maintained
by the HOA.
530
Building Envelope
Natural Hydroseed Grass Mix
on Slopes
Mixed Accent Grass
Drifts with Small Areas
of Shrub Color
Collector Road
Driveway Access (Typ.)
Shade Trees at Parking Pull Outs
Water Quality Basin
Large Trees
Oak, Olive, Pepper, Sycamore
Small Accent Trees
Ceanothus, Bottlebrush,
Revegetated Native Manzanita
Note:

See Tract Map for delineation
of HOA Common Area.

Large Trees
Accent Grasses
Shade Trees at Driveway PAGE 18
Local Collector Road Landscape (Private Loaded) 2D-4
REMOVED 531
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 20 ends

Lost Canyons Drive
Key Map
Tapo Canyon Road
Local/Collector RoadLocal/Collecto
r
Ro
a
d
Natural grasses mix (typical)
Accent Trees
Drifts of Mixed Shrubs and Native Grasses
Parking cut-outs
Terraced slope
C-3 LOCAL ROAD LANDSCAPE (TYPICAL)
532
Building Envelope
Small Accent Trees
Ceanothus, Bottlebrush,
Revegetated Native Manzanita
Minor Street
Drifts of Mixed Accent
Grasses with Colorful
Shrub Areas
Large Trees
Oak, Olive, Pepper,
Sycamore
Natural Grass
Hydroseed Mix
Note:

See Tract Map for delineation
of HOA Common Area.

Colorful Accent Grasses
Small Accent Trees
Large Vertical Trees
PAGE 19
Minor Road Landscape (Private) 2D-5
REMOVED 533
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 21 ends

Lost Canyons Drive
Key Map
Tapo Canyon Road
Local/Minor Road
Small Accent Grasses
and Native Landscaping
Parking cut-out
C-4 LOCAL/MINOR ROAD LANDSCAPE (TYPICAL)
Accent Trees
Accent trees
534
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 22 ends

Lost Canyons Drive
Key Map
Tapo Canyon Road
Local/Minor Road
Colorful accent grasses
Use of California native plants
Accent trees
C-5 LOCAL/MINOR ROAD LANDSCAPE (CORNER LOT - TYPICAL)
535

ELEVATION
Naturalized Unobtrusive Signage
Naturalized Trail along Roadway Naturalized Trail along Slope Area PAGE 21
Public / Private Trail Interface 2D-7
REMOVED 536
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 23 ends

Trails can be accessed from
the various points within the
plan area and will provide
multiple walking and hiking
routes for residents as well as
the public.

C-6 CONCEPTUAL TRAIL INTERFACE
Paved trail along roadway
Naturalized trail
Naturalized trail
Trailhead
Naturalized unobtrusive signage
537
PAGE 23
Water Tank Landscape Screening 2D-9
Earthen Berms in Combination with
Landscaping for Optimal Screening
Water Tank
Water Tank

CONCEPT PLAN VIEW
Water Tank Location
REMOVED 538
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 24 ends

Water Tank
Water Tank
C-7 CONCEPTUAL WATER TANK LANDSCAPE SCREENING/LANDSCAPE Earthen berms in combination with
landscaping for optimal screening
Water tank location
539
PAGE 25
Sign Location Concept 2E-1
REMOVED 540
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 25 ends

SHEET OF 1
PREPARED BY:
engineering consultants
rtm 1
1 in =
0 125 250
250 ft

SPEED LIMIT

EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS
STOP

STREET NAME COMBO

STOP/STREET NAME COMBO
YEILD

NEIGHBORHOOD MONUMENT

PROJECT ID

DIRECTIONAL SIGN
SHEET OF 11
1 in =
0 125 250
250 ft

SPEED LIMIT

EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS
STOP

STREET NAME COMBO

STOP/STREET NAME COMBO
YEILD

NEIGHBORHOOD MONUMENT

PROJECT ID

DIRECTIONAL SIGN
D-1 STREETS, SIGNAGE, ENTRANCE, AND EVA LOCATIONS
541
PAGE 26
Sign Program Concept 2E-2

SIGNAGE AND MONUMENTATION PROGRAM
Signage and monumentation at Lost Canyons plays a significant role in the overall community image. Signage and monumentation program(s) will be prepared in the future and shall detail the community-wide identification program, as well as a cohesive, well-articulated, direction system for the community. Improvement, design and construction drawings shall be prepared prior to Final Map recordation.

Typical Contents of a Sign Program Typical Improvement Design Drawings Project Entry Monumentation
Community Amenity Monumentation
Community Directional
Proposed Signage and Monumentation Notes:
• Project Entry Monumentation: 24 square feet maximum sign copy area, 8 feet maximum height above ground, 1 set per entry and lighting program per Sign Program document noted above. • Community Amenity Monuments: 24 square feet maximum sign copy area, 8 feet maximum height above ground, 1 set per entry and lighting program per Sign Program document noted above. • Community Directional: 24 square feet maximum sign copy area, 8 feet maximum height above ground, 1 set per entry and lighting program per Sign Program document noted above. • Traffic related and/or signs required by law shall conform to City of Simi Valley Code Section Traffic Related Signs 9-37.050 General Requirements.

REMOVED 542
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 26 ends

D-2 EXAMPLE SIGN PROGRAM CONTENTS

TYPICAL SIGNAGE AND MONUMENTATION PROGRAM CONTENT
Signage and monumentation at Lost Canyons will play a significant role in the overall community image. A signage and monumentation program(s) will be prepared in the future and shall detail the community-wide identification program, as well as a cohesive, well-articulated, direction system for the community. The details below are examples of the typical content to be included in a signage and monumentation program.

EXAMPLE OF TYPICAL CONTENTS OF A SIGN PROGRAM

EXAMPLE PROJECT ENTRY MONUMENTATION

EXAMPLE COMMUNITY AMENITY

MONUMENTATION

EXAMPLE TRAFFIC RELATED SIGNS

EXAMPLE IMPROVEMENT DESIGN DRAWINGS

EXAMPLE SIGNANGE AND MONUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
• Project Entry Monumentation: XX square feet maximum sign copy area, X feet maximum height above ground, 1 set per entry and lighting program per Sign Program document noted above.
• Community Amenity Monuments: XX square feet maximum sign copy area, X feet maximum height above ground, 1 set per entry and lighting program per Sign Program document noted above.
• Community Directional: XX square feet maximum sign copy area, X feet maximum height above ground, 1 set per entry and lighting program per Sign Program document noted above.
• Traffic related and/or signs required by law shall conform to City of Simi Valley Code Section 9-37.050 General Requirements.
543
PAGE 22
Common Area / Natural Open Space Fuel Modification 2D-8 REMOVED 544
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 27 ends

LOT
323
LOT
338
LOT
337
LOT
336
LOT
335
LOT
334
LOT
333 LOT
332 LOT
331
LOT
330
LOT
329 LOT
328 LOT
327 LOT
326 LOT
325 LOT
324
LOT
322
LOT 242
LOT
321 LOT
320 LOT
319
LOT
318
LOT
317
LOT
316
LOT
315
LOT
282
LOT
281
LOT
280
LOT
279
LOT
278
LOT
277
LOT
276
LOT
275
LOT
253
LOT 254
LOT 255
LOT 256
LOT 257
LOT 258
LOT 259
LOT 260
LOT 261
LOT 262
LOT 263
LOT 264
LOT 265
LOT 266
LOT 267
LOT 268
LOT 269
LOT 270
LOT 271
LOT 272
LOT 273
LOT 274
LOT
339
LOT
340
LOT
341 LOT
342
LOT
343
LOT
344
LOT 354
LOT 355
LOT 356
LOT 357
LOT 358
LOT 359
LOT 360
LOT 361
LOT 362
LOT 73
LOT 74
LOT 345
LOT 346
LOT 347
LOT 348
LOT 349
LOT 350
LOT 351
LOT 352
LOT 353
LOT
75 LOT
76 LOT
77 LOT
78 LOT
151 LOT
152
LOT
153
LOT
154
LOT
155
LOT
156
LOT
157
LOT
158
LOT
159
LOT
160
LOT
161 LOT
162 LOT
163 LOT
164
LOT
165
LOT
166
LOT
167
LOT
168 LOT
169 LOT
170 LOT
171 LOT
172 LOT
173
LOT
174
LOT
175
LOT
176
LOT
177
LOT
178
LOT 238
LOT 237
LOT 239
LOT 240
LOT 241
LOT 243
LOT 250
LOT 244
LOT 245
LOT 246
LOT 247
LOT 248
LOT 249
LOT 179
LOT 252
LOT 251
LOT 180
LOT
98 LOT
181
LOT
182
LOT
183
LOT
184
LOT
185
LOT
186
LOT
187 LOT
LOT 188
LOT 189
LOT 190
191 LOT
192 LOT
193
LOT
194
LOT
195
LOT
196 LOT
197
LOT
198
LOT
199
LOT
200
LOT
201
LOT
202 LOT
225 LOT
226
LOT 236
LOT 235
LOT 234
LOT 233
LOT 232
LOT 231
LOT 230
LOT 229
LOT 228
LOT 227 LOT 224
LOT 223
LOT 222
LOT 221
LOT 220
LOT 215
LOT 214
LOT 213
LOT
212 LOT
LOT 211
LOT 210
209
LOT
208
LOT
207
LOT
206
LOT
205
LOT
204
LOT
203
LOT
105 LOT
106 LOT
107 LOT
108
LOT
109
LOT
110
LOT
111
LOT
113
LOT
116 LOT
115 LOT
114
LOT
217
LOT
216
LOT
79 LOT
81 LOT
82 LOT
83 LOT
84 LOT
85 LOT
86 LOT
87 LOT
88 LOT
89 LOT
90 LOT
91 LOT
92 LOT
93 LOT
94 LOT
95 LOT
96 LOT
97 LOT
99 LOT
100
LOT
101
LOT
102
LOT
145
LOT
146
LOT
147
LOT
148
LOT
149
LOT
150
LOT
143
LOT
144
LOT
80 LOT
112
LOT
218
LOT
219
LOT
103
LOT
AN
LOT
18 LOT
22 LOT
BL
LOT
AO
LOT
AM
LOT
AN
LOT
CF
LOT
BM
LOT
BL
LOT
22 LOT
BI
LOT
BJ
LOT
BF
PARCEL
A
LOT
BG
LOT
BC LOT
LOT BL
CE LOT
CG
LOT
CL
LOT
CK
LOT
DE
LOT
AL
LOT
CJ
LOT
CO
LOT
CN
PARCEL
C
LOT
13 X
X X

X X X X

X X X X
X
X

X X X X X
X
X
X
>
>
>
> > >
M M
S
S
LOT
292
LOT
4 LOT LOST CANYONS DRIVE
309

TAPO CANYON ROAD
CDFW

JURISDICTIONAL
LIMIT
LOT 58
LOT 57
LOT 56
LOT 55
LOT 54
LOT 53
LOT 52
LOT 45
LOT 46
LOT 47
LOT 48
LOT 44
LOT 43
LOT 42
LOT 41
LOT 40
LOT 39
LOT 38
LOT 37
LOT 36
LOT 35
LOT 34
LOT 25
LOT 24
LOT 23
LOT 22
LOT 21
LOT 33
LOT 32
LOT 31
LOT 30
LOT 29
LOT 28
LOT 27
LOT 26
LOT
20 LOT
19 LOT
18 LOT
17 LOT
16 LOT
LOT 15
14 LOT
13 LOT
12 LOT
11 LOT 10
LOT 9
LOT 8
LOT 7
LOT 6
LOT 59
LOT 60
LOT 61
LOT 62
LOT 63
LOT 64
LOT 65
LOT 66
LOT 67
LOT 68
LOT 69
LOT 70
LOT 71
LOT 72
LOT 50
LOT 51
LOT
104
LOT
134
LOT
117 LOT
118 LOT
119
LOT
120
LOT
122
LOT
123
LOT
124 LOT
125 LOT
126 LOT
127 LOT
128 LOT
129 LOT
130 LOT
131
LOT
132
LOT
136
LOT
135
LOT
137
LOT
139
LOT
138
LOT
142
LOT
140
LOT
141
LOT
121
LOT 49
LOT
133
LOT
314 LOT
300 LOT
301 LOT
302 LOT
303 LOT
304 LOT
305
LOT
306 LOT
307 LOT
308
LOT
310
LOT
311 LOT
312
LOT
313
LOT
299
LOT
298 LOT
297
LOT
296
LOT
295
LOT
294
LOT
293
LOT
291
LOT
284
LOT
290
LOT
289
LOT
288
LOT
287
LOT
286
LOT
285
LOT
283
LOT
LOT 1
LOT 2
3 LOT
5 S
X
X X

X X X X

X X X X
X
X

X X X X X
X
X
X
>
> > > >
>
>
>
>
LOT CT
LOT R
LOT CR
LOT CS
LOT Q
LOT BZ
LOT CV
LOT C
LOT CV
LOT BS
LOT G
LOT BO
LOT A
LOT BL

LOT CX LOT I
LOT BL
LOT X
LOT CC
LOT DA
LOT BL
LOT F
LOT E
LOT CB
LOT CA
LOT CR
LOT CP
LOT CQ
LOT CS
LOT Q
LOT Q
LOT CV
LOT CT
LOT R
LOT AZ
LOT A
LOT D
LOT BS
LOT BR
LOT BQ
LOT BV
LOT BX
LOT BU
LOT BW
LOT BW
LOT BL
LOT BL
LOT BL
LOT AM
LOT BL
LOT CW
LOT G
LOT BO
LOT BM
LOT E
LOT C
LOT A
LOT R
LOT CP
LOT BL

LOT CX LOT I
LOT CF
NORTH
0 150' 300' 600'
Common Minimum Size at
Time of Planting WUCOLS
Western Redbud 15 Gallon Low
Sycamore 15 Gallon Moderate
Mexican Elderberry 15 Gallon Low
Common Yarrow 1 Gallon Low
Purple Threeawn (30') 1 Gallon Low
Blue Grama Grass (30') 1 Gallon Low
Dune Sedge (30') 1 Gallon Moderate
Prince' ² Canyon Prince Wild Rye (30') 1 Gallon Low
Coast Sunflower (30') 1 Gallon Very Low
Toyon (30') 1 Gallon Low
¹ Quartz Creek Soft Rush (30') 1 Gallon Moderate
California Gray Rush (30') 1 Gallon Low
Dwarf Mat Rush (30') 1 Gallon Moderate
Dwarf Red Fountain Grass (100') 1 Gallon Low
Coffeeberry (30') 1 Gallon Low
Golden Eyed Grass (30') 1 Gallon Moderate
ES - ZONE '1' & '2'
Common Minimum Size at
Time of Planting WUCOLS
Strawberry Tree (30') 15 Gallon Low
Bottle Tree 15 Gallon Low
Foothill Ash 24" Box Low
American Sweet Gum 24" Box Moderate
Chilean and Honey Mesquite 24" Box Low
d' London Plane Tree 15 Gallon Moderate
California Sycamore 15 Gallon Moderate
Coast Live Oak (30') 24" Box Low
Blue Oak (30') 24" Box Low
Engelmann Oak (30') 24" Box Low
African Sumac (30') 24" Box Low
Blue Elderberry 15 Gallon Low
R
t' Desert Carpet Acacia (30') 1 Gallon Low
old
Gold Carpet Wattle (30') 1 Gallon Low
Agave 5 Gallon Low
Aloe 5 Gallon Low
Little John Bottlebrush (30') 1 Gallon Moderate
Rockrose 1 Gallon Low
Jade Plant 1 Gallon Low
Lily 1 Gallon Low
Coast Sunflower (30') 1 Gallon Very Low
Blue Fescue 1 Gallon Moderate
NCN 1 Gallon Low
No common name 1 Gallon Low
Toyon (30') 1 Gallon Low
Red-Hot Pocker 1 Gallon Low
Spanish Lavender 1 Gallon Low
Texas Sage (100') 1 Gallon Low
Sea Lavender 1 Gallon Low
Silver Lupine 1 Gallon Low
Grape Soda Lupine 1 Gallon Low
Creeping Myoporum 1 Gallon or Flats Low
Pacific Myoporum 1 Gallon Low
Prickly Pear 1 Gallon Very Low
Wild Rose 1 Gallon Low
atus" Creeping Rosemary (30') 1 Gallon Very Low
Sage (100') 1 Gallon Low-Mod
Blue Chalk Sticks 1 Gallon or Flats Low
Coast Rosemary (30') 1 Gallon Low
zon' 'Low Horizon' Coast Rosemary 1 Gallon Low
Yucca 5 Gallon Low
Yarrow 1 Gallon or Flats Low
Rockrose 1 Gallon or Flats Low
Siskiyou Blue Fescue 1 Gallon or Flats Low
Lantana 1 Gallon or Flats Low
Mexican Cardinal Flower 1 Gallon or Flats Low
Creeping Myoporum 1 Gallon or Flats Low
Stonecrops 1 Gallon or Flats Low
Blue Chalk Sticks 1 Gallon or Flats Low
Germander 1 Gallon or Flats Low
Sodded Grasses Sod Low
T planted on any combustible structure)
Coral Vine 5 Gallon Low
Lilac Vine 5 Gallon Low
Cat's Claw Creeper 5 Gallon Low
Magnolia 5 Gallon Moderate
es as noted above
INVASIVE SPECIES - Removal within all fuel mod zones
Botanical Common
TREES
Cupressus sp. Cypress
Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus
Juniperus sp. Juniper
Nicotiana glauca Tree Tobacco
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date Palm
Botanical Common Stock Type Lbs/Acre
Acmispon glaber Deerweed Seed 4
Amsinckia intermedia Common Fiddleneck Seed 1.5
*Artemisia californica California Sagebrush Seed 1
*Baccharis pilularis Coyote Brush Seed 0.5
Chenopodium californicum California Goosefoot Seed 1
Deinandra fasciculata Clustered Tarweed Seed 0.5
Encelia californica Bush Sunflower Seed 1.5
*Eriogonum fasciculatum Buckwheat Seed 1.5
Eschscholzia californica California Poppy Seed 3
Festuca microstachys Small Fescue Seed 6
Hazardia squarrosa Saw-toothed Goldenbush Seed 1
Lasthenia glabrata Coast Goldfields Seed 0.5
Lupinus succulentus Arroyo Lupine Seed 3
Malacothamnus fasciculatus Chaparral Mallow Seed 1
Mimulus aurantiacus aurantiacus Sticky Monkey Flower Seed 0.1 Phacelia tanacetifolia Tansy Leafed Phacelia Seed 3
*Salvia apiana White Sage Seed 0.5
*Salvia columbariae Chia Seed 0.25
*Salvia leucophylla Purple Sage Seed 1.5
*Salvia mellifera Black Sage Seed 1
Total 32.35
* Target species
Olea europaea Olive
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date Palm
Pinus sp. Pine
Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust
Schinus molle California Pepper
Schinus terebithifolius Brazilian Pepper
Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm
SHRUBS
Anthemis cotula Mayweed
Brassica nigra Black Mustard
Brassica rapa Wild Turnip, Yellow Mustard
Cardaria draba Noary Cress
Centaurea solstitialis Yellow Star-Thistle
Cirsium vulgare Wild Artichoke
Conyza canadensis Horseweed
Cortaderia selloana Pampas Grass
Cotoneaster sp. Cotoneaster
Cynara cardunculus Artichoke Thistle
Datura wrightii Jimsonweed
Echium fastuosum Pride of Madeira
Euphorbia sp. Euphorbia
Foeniculum vulgare Fennel
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph Plant
Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce
Nicotiana bigelovii Indian Tobacco
Pennisetum setaceum Fountain Grass
Pyracantha sp. Firethorn
LAKE
Table 3 VCFD FMZ Spacing Table 3 Notes:
a. Spacing is measured canopy to canopy at maturity. See Chapter 5 examples.
b. Slopes greater than 20%, For grouping of ground cover and shrubs over 6-inches high, the maximum horizontal distance running with the slope shall not exceed 10-feet before spacing is required to the next grouping.
c. Use Zone 1 Spacing for plants and trees located between and or overlapping Zone 1 and 2.
d. Privacy screening using plants and trees must still comply with height, width and spacing requirements of Table 3.

Additional Requirements all Zones:

3.5 Additional Requirements all Zones.

Prohibited Plants. Plants and trees listed in Fire Department Guideline 410 - Prohibited Plant List or identified as “*Target” (undesirable) plants and trees in Fire Department Guideline 417 - Plant Reference Guide shall not be planted within any zone. It is highly recommended that no new invasive plants be installed, and that any existing invasive plants be removed.

Grasses. Natural or annual grasses shall be mowed to a maximum height of 3-inch stubble with clippings removed.

Chimney & Stovepipe Clearance. The horizontal and vertical clearance to any chimney outlet or heat-producing device shall not be less than 10-feet.

Ground Clearance of Trees. Trees exceeding 6-feet in height shall be limbed up from the ground 6-feet or 1/3 the height of the tree, whichever is less. Exception: Fruit trees when approved, shall provide a minimum 12-inch clearance above ground. See Chapter 5 example.

Ground cover under tree canopy. When approved ground cover and shrubs are located underneath trees, the vertical clearance to the lowest branch of the tree canopy shall not be less than three times the height of ground cover or shrub under or adjacent to the tree. The horizontal clearance shall be 3-feet from the trunk of the tree. See Chapter 5 example.

Maintenance. All plants and trees, including dried palm fronds, shall be maintained free of dead and dying wood, leaves, and limbs that can increase ability to ignite and/or carry fire.

Tree Litter. Tree litter shall not exceed 2-inches in depth underneath tree canopies and shall be kept back a minimum of 12-inches from any tree trunk.

Mulch and Wood Chips. Combustible mulch and wood chips shall comply with Fire Department Standard 517 and are not allowed within 5-feet of structures.

Continuous Tree Canopies.

New Structures. Continuous tree canopies are not allowed. Tree spacing shall be in accordance with Table 3 of this standard.

Existing Structures Prior to April 19, 2019. Continuous tree canopies may be allowed as determined by the Fire Code Official but will require the complete removal of any understory and smaller trees to meet requirements for a shaded fuel zone. Any remaining trees shall be limbed up a minimum 12 feet from the ground or 1/3 the tree height, whichever is less. The intent is to not allow a crown (canopy) fire to spread unchecked to a structure and to bring any crown fire down to the ground level prior to Zone 1.

Accessory Storage Buildings. New accessory buildings of any size install after January 1, 2023 and located within 50-feet of an applicable building on the same parcel shall be constructed of non-combustible materials or of ignition-resistant materials as required in California Building Code CBC) Section 704A.2.

Erosion Control. Erosion control must be considered when conducting fuel modification/clearance work and when designing / installing new landscape. Contact the local jurisdiction, typically the public works agency, to determine if any specific erosion control is required. Plants and trees selected for erosion control are still required to comply with the VCFC and this Standard.

FUEL MOD. LEGEND
ZONE 2 - Non-Irrigated (Graded Slopes will be irrigated)

SYMBOL LEGEND

CSS RESTORATION OUTSIDE OF FUEL MOD ZONE
(MASTER DEVELOPER)

CSS REVEGETATION WITHIN GRADED AREA

OUTSIDE OF FUEL MOD ZONE (HOA MAINTAINED)

CSS ENHANCEMENT RESTORATION OUTSIDE OF

FUEL MOD ZONE (MASTER DEVELOPER)

PROPERTY LINE

CDFW JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT
ZONE 21 - Reduced Fuel Zone - HOA Maintained Irrigated Slopes Ornamental irrigated slopes and roadside treatment areas. Landscaping per Plant Palette for Zone 21 & 2 to 100' from structures. Planted per spacing table 3 above

GILLIBRAND CREEK

HOA MAINTAINED

BASIN LANDSCAPE (HOA MAINTAINED)
ZONE 1 - Zone 1 (Setback from Structure) is the area within 5-30 feet of structures and decks with slopes not greater than 20 percent; 5-50 feet from buildings and decks when slopes are greater than 20 percent. This is the minimal planting zone and very limited trees of a fire-resistive type and additional spacing. Trees: New trees shall be planted and maintained so that the tree's drip line at maturity is a minimum of 10-feet (3048 mm) from any combustible structure. See Table 3 - VCFD FMZ Spacing, for plant and tree height, width, and space requirements. Portion within pad/property line maintained by homeowner. Portion outside pad/property line maintained by HOA.

ZONE 0 - Ember Resistant Zone - Zone 0 is the horizontal area within the first five feet around the structure, any outbuildings, and attached decks, and stairs. Zone 0 is measured from the edge of a structure, attached decks, patio covers, balconies, and floor projections above grade. The zone also includes the area under attached decks and stair landings. This should be a "lean" or no planting zone. It is highly recommended to be a non-combustible zone. No combustible landscape mulch or wood chips. Use clear soil, rocks, gravel or concrete. Artificial or synthetic grass is prohibited within Zone 0.

MIN. 20'-0" BUILDING SETBACK FROM

REAR PROPERTY LINE
MIN. 15'-0" BUILDING SETBACK FROM

FRONT PROPERTY LINE
MIN. 10'-0" BUILDING SETBACK FROM

SIDE PROPERTY LINE

PROJECT BY SHEET TITLE REVISIONS
DRAWN

CHECKED
DATE
AS
BC
OCTOBER 152025
OWNER
STAMP

REC CENTER
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
PH1 PH2
PH1 PH2
CDFW

JURISDICTIONAL
LIMIT
CSS Revegetation Coverage outside of
Fuel Mod limit temporary irrigation
50 ft
Zone 1
50 ft
Zone 2

PROPERTY OWNER MAINTAINED

HOA MAINTAINED
Note:

In some cases Zone 1 setback area will be greater than 20 ft.

Sideyard at Fuel Mod edge - 10' min. to ⅊, additional 10' beyond ⅊ pad (HOA)
Planting / Thinning Zone
Required building
setback
Dimension varies

EDGE OF / BUILDING

ENVELOPE
5 ft
Zone 0
20' MIN.

FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE 1 AND 2 - HYDROSEED MIX
Botanical Common Lbs/Acre
Acmispon glaber Deerweed 4
Amsinckia intermedia Common Fiddleneck 1.5
Chenopodium californicum California Goosefoot 1
Deinandra fasciculata Clustered Tarweed 0.5
Encelia californica Bush Sunflower 1.5
Eschscholzia californica California Poppy 3
Festuca microstachys Small Fescue 6
Hazardia squarrosa Saw-toothed Goldenbush 1
Lasthenia glabrata Coast Goldfields 0.5
Lupinus succulentus Arroyo Lupine 3
Malacothamnus fasciculatus Chaparral Mallow 1
Mimulus aurantiacus aurantiacus Sticky Monkey Flower 0.1 Phacelia tanacetifolia Tansy Leafed Phacelia 3
Total 26.1
LOT
18 LOT
BI
LOT
BJ
NORTH
0 150' 300' 600'
Table 3 VCFD FMZ Spacing
canopy to canopy at maturity. See Chapter 5
0%, For grouping of ground cover and shrubs
e maximum horizontal distance running with
ceed 10-feet before spacing is required to the
or plants and trees located between and or
nd 2.
g plants and trees must still comply with
cing requirements of Table 3.
ts all Zones:
ts all Zones.
nd trees listed in Fire Department Guideline
or identified as “*Target” (undesirable) plants
nt Guideline 417 - Plant Reference Guide shall
zone. It is highly recommended that no new
and that any existing invasive plants be
grasses shall be mowed to a maximum height
pings removed.
rance. The horizontal and vertical clearance to
-producing device shall not be less than
s. Trees exceeding 6-feet in height shall be
6-feet or 1/3 the height of the tree, whichever
s when approved, shall provide a minimum
ound. See Chapter 5 example.
canopy. When approved ground cover and
ath trees, the vertical clearance to the lowest
hall not be less than three times the height of
er or adjacent to the tree. The horizontal
om the trunk of the tree. See Chapter 5
nd trees, including dried palm fronds, shall be
d dying wood, leaves, and limbs that can
d/or carry fire.
l not exceed 2-inches in depth underneath
kept back a minimum of 12-inches from any
Combustible mulch and wood chips shall
ent Standard 517 and are not allowed within
s.
us tree canopies are not allowed. Tree spacing
Table 3 of this standard.

April 19, 2019. Continuous tree canopies may
by the Fire Code Official but will require the
nderstory and smaller trees to meet
fuel zone. Any remaining trees shall be limbed
m the ground or 1/3 the tree height, whichever
allow a crown (canopy) fire to spread
nd to bring any crown fire down to the ground
s. New accessory buildings of any size install
ocated within 50-feet of an applicable building
constructed of non-combustible materials or
ls as required in California Building Code CBC)
ntrol must be considered when conducting
work and when designing / installing new
al jurisdiction, typically the public works
y specific erosion control is required. Plants and
ontrol are still required to comply with the
FUEL MOD. LEGEND
ZONE 2 - Non-Irrigated (Graded Slopes will be irrigated) HOA maintained, beginning at the end of Zone 1 extending outward to 100' from structure. Planted/thinned per Spacing Table above.

SYMBOL LEGEND

CSS RESTORATION OUTSIDE OF FUEL MOD ZONE
(MASTER DEVELOPER)

CSS REVEGETATION WITHIN GRADED AREA

OUTSIDE OF FUEL MOD ZONE (HOA MAINTAINED)

CSS ENHANCEMENT RESTORATION OUTSIDE OF

FUEL MOD ZONE (MASTER DEVELOPER)

PROPERTY LINE

GILLIBRAND CREEK

HOA MAINTAINED

MIN. 20'-0" BUILDING SETBACK FROM

REAR PROPERTY LINE
MIN. 15'-0" BUILDING SETBACK FROM

FRONT PROPERTY LINE
MIN. 10'-0" BUILDING SETBACK FROM

SIDE PROPERTY LINE

PROJECT

SHEET TITLE
DRAWN

CHECKED
DATE
JOB NO.

SHEET

OF SHEETS
blication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reproduction, publication, or reuse by any method, in whole or in part without the express consent of Clark & Green Associates is prohibited. Title to the plans and specifications remain in Clark & Green Associates without prejudice. Visual contact with these plans and specifications shall constitute prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions.

AS
BC
OCTOBER 15, 2025
24-258
OWNER
PH1 PH2
PH1 PH2
NOTES:

NO THINNING FOR FUEL MOD PERMITTED
WITHIN JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT.
50 ft
Zone 1
50 ft
Zone 2

PROPERTY OWNER MAINTAINED

HOA MAINTAINED
Note:

In some cases Zone 1 setback area will be greater than 20 ft.

Sideyard at Fuel Mod edge - 10' min. to ⅊, additional 10' beyond ⅊ pad (HOA)
Planting / Thinning Zone
Required building
setback
Dimension varies

EDGE OF / BUILDING

ENVELOPE
5 ft
Zone 0
20' MIN.

LOT
323
LOT
338
LOT
337
LOT
336
LOT
335
LOT
334
LOT
333 LOT
332 LOT
331
LOT
330
LOT
329 LOT
328 LOT
327 LOT
326 LOT
325 LOT
324
LOT
322
LOT 242
LOT
321 LOT
320 LOT
319
LOT
318
LOT
317
LOT
316
LOT
315
LOT
282
LOT
281
LOT
280
LOT
279
LOT
278
LOT
277
LOT
253
LOT 254
LOT 255
LOT 256
LOT 257
LOT 258
LOT 259
LOT 260
LOT 261
LOT 262
LOT 263
LOT 264
LOT 265
LOT 266
LOT 267
LOT 268
LOT 269
LOT
339
LOT
340
LOT
341 LOT
342
LOT
343
LOT
344
LOT 354
LOT 355
LOT 356
LOT 357
LOT 358
LOT 359
LOT 360
LOT 361
LOT 362
LOT 73
LOT 74
LOT 345
LOT 346
LOT 347
LOT 348
LOT 349
LOT 350
LOT 351
LOT 352
LOT 353
LOT
75 LOT
76 LOT
77 LOT
78 LOT
151 LOT
152
LOT
153
LOT
154
LOT
155
LOT
156
LOT
157
LOT
158
LOT
159
LOT
160
LOT
161 LOT
162 LOT
163 LOT
164
LOT
165
LOT
166
LOT
167
LOT
168 LOT
169 LOT
170 LOT
171 LOT
172 LOT
173
LOT
174
LOT
175
LOT
176
LOT
177
LOT
178
LOT 238
LOT 237
LOT 239
LOT 240
LOT 241
LOT 243
LOT 250
LOT 244
LOT 245
LOT 246
LOT 247
LOT 248
LOT 249
LOT 179
LOT 252
LOT 251
LOT 180
LOT
98 LOT
181
LOT
182
LOT
183
LOT
184
LOT
185
LOT
186
LOT
187 LOT
LOT 188
LOT 189
LOT 190
191 LOT
192 LOT
193
LOT
194
LOT
195
LOT
196 LOT
197
LOT
198
LOT
199
LOT
200
LOT
201
LOT
202 LOT
225 LOT
226
LOT 236
LOT 235
LOT 234
LOT 233
LOT 232
LOT 231
LOT 230
LOT 229
LOT 228
LOT 227 LOT 224
LOT 223
LOT 222
LOT 221
LOT 220
LOT 215
LOT 214
LOT 213
LOT
212 LOT
LOT 211
LOT 210
209
LOT
208
LOT
207
LOT
206
LOT
205
LOT
204
LOT
203
LOT
105 LOT
106 LOT
107 LOT
108
LOT
109
LOT
110
LOT
111
LOT
113
LOT
116 LOT
115 LOT
114
LOT
217
LOT
216
LOT
79 LOT
81 LOT
82 LOT
83 LOT
84 LOT
85 LOT
86 LOT
87 LOT
88 LOT
89 LOT
90 LOT
91 LOT
92 LOT
93 LOT
94 LOT
95 LOT
96 LOT
97 LOT
99 LOT
100
LOT
101
LOT
102
LOT
145
LOT
146
LOT
147
LOT
148
LOT
149
LOT
150
LOT
143
LOT
144
LOT
80 LOT
112
LOT
218
LOT
219
LOT
103
LOT
18 LOT
22 CF
LOT
22 LOT
BI
LOT
BJ
LOT
BF
PARCEL
A
LOT
BG
LOT
BC LOT
LOT BL
CE
LOT
AL
LOT
CJ
PARCEL
C
X
X X

X X X X

X X X X
X
X

X X X X X
X
X
X
>
>
>
> > >
M M
S
S
LOT
292

LOT LOST CANYONS DRIVE
309

TAPO CANYON ROAD
LOT 58
LOT 57
LOT 56
LOT 55
LOT 54
LOT 53
LOT 52
LOT 45
LOT 46
LOT 47
LOT 48
LOT 44
LOT 43
LOT 42
LOT 41
LOT 40
LOT 39
LOT 38
LOT 37
LOT 36
LOT 35
LOT 34
LOT 25
LOT 24
LOT 23
LOT 22
LOT 21
LOT 33
LOT 32
LOT 31
LOT 30
LOT 29
LOT 28
LOT 27
LOT 26
LOT
20 LOT
19 LOT
18 LOT
17 LOT 59
LOT 60
LOT 61
LOT 62
LOT 63
LOT 64
LOT 65
LOT 66
LOT 67
LOT 68
LOT 69
LOT 70
LOT 71
LOT 72
LOT 50
LOT 51
LOT
104
LOT
134
LOT
117 LOT
118 LOT
119
LOT
120
LOT
122
LOT
123
LOT
124 LOT
125 LOT
126 LOT
127 LOT
128 LOT
129 LOT
130 LOT
131
LOT
132
LOT
136
LOT
135
LOT
137
LOT
139
LOT
138
LOT
142
LOT
140
LOT
141
LOT
121
LOT 49
LOT
133
LOT
314 LOT
300 LOT
301 LOT
302 LOT
303 LOT
304 LOT
305
LOT
306 LOT
307 LOT
308
LOT
310
LOT
311 LOT
312
LOT
313
LOT
299
LOT
298 LOT
297
LOT
296
LOT
295
LOT
294
LOT
293
LOT
291
LOT
284
LOT
290
LOT
289
LOT
288
LOT
287
LOT
286
LOT
285
LOT
283
S
X
X X

X X X X

X X X X
X
X

X X X X X
X
X
X
>
> > > >
>
>
>
>
LOT CT
LOT R
LOT CR
LOT CS
LOT Q
LOT BZ
LOT CV
LOT C
LOT CV
LOT BS
LOT G
LOT BO
LOT A
LOT BL

LOT CX LOT I
LOT X
LOT CC
LOT DA
LOT BL
LOT F
LOT E
LOT CB
LOT CA
LOT CR
LOT CP
LOT CQ
LOT CS
LOT Q
LOT Q
LOT CV
LOT CT
LOT R
LOT AZ
LOT A
LOT D
LOT BS
LOT BR
LOT BQ
LOT BV
LOT BX
LOT BU
LOT BW
LOT BW
LOT BL
LOT BL
LOT CW
LOT G
LOT BO
LOT E
LOT C
LOT A
LOT R
LOT CP
LOT BL

LOT CX LOT I
LOT CF
NORTH
0 150' 300' 600'
Stock Type Lbs/Acre
Seed 4
eck Seed 1.5
sh Seed 1
Seed 0.5
oot Seed 1
d Seed 0.5
Seed 1.5
Seed 1.5
Seed 3
Seed 6
enbush Seed 1
Seed 0.5
Seed 3
Seed 1
wer Seed 0.1
celia Seed 3
Seed 0.5
Seed 0.25
Seed 1.5
Seed 1

32.35 LAKE
Table 3 VCFD FMZ Spacing Table 3 Notes:
a. Spacing is measured canopy to canopy at maturity. See Chapter 5 examples.
b. Slopes greater than 20%, For grouping of ground cover and shrubs over 6-inches high, the maximum horizontal distance running with the slope shall not exceed 10-feet before spacing is required to the next grouping.
c. Use Zone 1 Spacing for plants and trees located between and or overlapping Zone 1 and 2.
d. Privacy screening using plants and trees must still comply with height, width and spacing requirements of Table 3.

Additional Requirements all Zones:

3.5 Additional Requirements all Zones.

Grasses. Natural or annual grasses shall be mowed to a maximum height of 3-inch stubble with clippings removed.

Chimney & Stovepipe Clearance. The horizontal and vertical clearance to any chimney outlet or heat-producing device shall not be less than 10-feet.

Maintenance. All plants and trees, including dried palm fronds, shall be maintained free of dead and dying wood, leaves, and limbs that can increase ability to ignite and/or carry fire.

Tree Litter. Tree litter shall not exceed 2-inches in depth underneath tree canopies and shall be kept back a minimum of 12-inches from any tree trunk.

Mulch and Wood Chips. Combustible mulch and wood chips shall comply with Fire Department Standard 517 and are not allowed within 5-feet of structures.

Continuous Tree Canopies.

New Structures. Continuous tree canopies are not allowed. Tree spacing shall be in accordance with Table 3 of this standard.

FUEL MOD. LEGEND
ZONE 2 - Non-Irrigated (Graded Slopes will be irrigated) HOA maintained, beginning at the end of Zone 1 extending outward to 100' from structure. Planted/thinned per Spacing Table above.

SYMBOL LEGEND

CSS RESTORATION OUTSIDE OF FUEL MOD ZONE
(MASTER DEVELOPER)

CSS REVEGETATION WITHIN GRADED AREA

OUTSIDE OF FUEL MOD ZONE (HOA MAINTAINED)

CSS ENHANCEMENT RESTORATION OUTSIDE OF

FUEL MOD ZONE (MASTER DEVELOPER)

PROPERTY LINE

GILLIBRAND CREEK

HOA MAINTAINED

MIN. 20'-0" BUILDING SETBACK FROM

REAR PROPERTY LINE
MIN. 15'-0" BUILDING SETBACK FROM

FRONT PROPERTY LINE
MIN. 10'-0" BUILDING SETBACK FROM

SIDE PROPERTY LINE

PROJECT

SHEET TITLE REVISIONS
DRAWN

CHECKED
DATE
JOB NO.

SHEET

OF SHEETS
use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the original site for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reproduction, publication, or reuse by any method, in whole or in part without the express consent of Clark & Green Associates is prohibited. Title to the plans and specifications remain in Clark & Green Associates without prejudice. Visual contact with these plans and specifications shall constitute prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions.

AS
BC
OCTOBER 15, 2025
24-258
OWNER

REC CENTER
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
PH1 PH2
PH1 PH2
CDFW

JURISDICTIONAL
LIMIT
NOTES:

NO THINNING FOR FUEL MOD PERMITTED
WITHIN JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT.
50 ft
Zone 1
50 ft
Zone 2

PROPERTY OWNER MAINTAINED

HOA MAINTAINED
Note:

In some cases Zone 1 setback area will be greater than 20 ft.

Sideyard at Fuel Mod edge - 10' min. to ⅊, additional 10' beyond ⅊ pad (HOA)
Planting / Thinning Zone
Required building
setback
Dimension varies

EDGE OF / BUILDING

ENVELOPE
5 ft
Zone 0
20' MIN.

ROSEED MIX
Lbs/Acre
4 eck 1.5
oot 1
d 0.5

1.5 3
6 enbush 1

0.5 3
1 wer 0.1
celia 3

26.1 E-1 FUEL MODIFICATION ZONES
545
Community Common Area Landscape 3A-3 March 2024
1” = 300’
Water Tank
Landscape Screening
Exhibit 2D-9
Dry Canyon Entry
Exhibit 2B-6
Local Minor Road
Landscape
Exhibit 2D-5
Public Trail
Private Trail
Public/Private
Trail Interface
Exhibit 2D-7
Village Core Entry
Exhibit 2B-5
North Tapo Entry
Exhibit 2B-3
South Tapo Entry
Exhibit 2B-4
Local Collector
Road Landscape
Exhibit 2D-4
Tapo Canyon
Road Landscape
Exhibit 2D-1
Project Entry
Exhibit 2B-1 & 2B-2
Lost Canyons Drive Landscape
Exhibit 2D-2
Tapo Canyon Road
Lost Canyons Lost Canyons Drive
Drive EVA
Exhibit 2C-2
Anderson Road
EVA
Exhibit 2C-3
Ditch Road
Presidio EVA
Exhibit 2C-1
Golf Routing
Exhibit 2A-1
Lost Canyons Drive Landscape
Exhibit 2D-3
PAGE 29
Community Common Area Landscape 3A-3

REMOVED
See Following Insert for Large Map
546
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 28 ends

Recreation Center
Key Map
Local Road Typical Water Tank Landscape Local Road Typical Landscape
Local Road
Lost Canyons Typical Landscape
Entry (West)
Typical Terraced
Landscape Lake
Typical Project
Entrance
Tapo Canyon Road
Lost Canyons
Entry (East)
E-2 CONCEPTUAL COMMUNITY LANDSCAPE
547

SHEET OF
1 PREPARED BY:
engineering consultants
rtm 1 INCH = 400 FEET
400 2000 400 800 1
+ INDICATES TREE NUMBER
Tree Exhibit 3A-4 March 2024
1” = 300’
SHEET OF 1
PREPARED BY:
engineering consultants
rtm 1 INCH = 400 FEET
400 2000 400 800 1
+ INDICATES TREE NUMBER
PAGE 30
Tree Exhibit 3A-4

REMOVED
See Following Insert for Large Map
548
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 29 ends

LEGEND

RSRPD TRAIL

COMMUNITY TRAIL
E-3 TRAILS MAP
RSRPD
Trailhead
Public
Trailhead
549
Master Lotting Concept 3A-1
Including Golf Course Routing & Features Plan
March 2024
1” = 300’
PAGE 27
Master Lotting Concept 3A-1
Including Golf Course Routing & Features Plan

REMOVED
See Following Insert for Large Map
550
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 30 ends

Key Map
E-4 MASTER LOTTING MAP
551
November 2025

LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN

PROGRAM BOOK

Page 31 ends

LEGEND

EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS

PLAN AREA/COMMUNITY

ENTRIES
N
E-5 ENTRANCES AND EVA MAP
552

PROGRAM BOOK

MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

PERMIT MODIFICATION
NOVEMBER 2025
553
NC 5/3-26(dsf)
Development Review Summary
Neighborhood Council No: 1
NC Meeting Date: March 5, 2026
Project No(s): GPA-2024-0003/SP-S-2025-0002/Z-S-2025-0003/PDS-2025-0003/TT-2025-0002 Project Description: Review of a request for a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Planned
Development Permit Modification, and Tentative Map for
the Lost Canyons development to eliminate the golf
course, relocate 180 approved single-family dwellings
from the south side of Lost Canyons Drive to the north
side, and changes to the development and design
standards
Case Planner: Elizabeth Richardson
Neighborhood Council 1
Meeting Date: March 5, 2026
Audience members asked questions and made comments relating to: Concern about the proposed street width reduction on Tapo Canyon Road, including the parkway reduction and removal of the raised median, the use of potable water for the lake, the reasoning for natural gas lines as gas is being phased out in new construction, bike lanes, traffic signals, project entrances, solar panels, the exclusiveness of a guard-gated community, and the use of flock cameras. Comments included that the width reduction of Tapo Canyon Road is unwise and unsafe.

The applicant responded to the above questions as follows: The Specific Plan Amendment proposes to reduce portions of Tapo Canyon Road between Presidio Drive and Lost Canyons Drive from 52 feet to 45 feet in width to address geotechnical and hillside conditions. This section will provide a 40-foot curb-to-curb width consisting of two 12-foot travel lanes, two 6-foot bicycle lanes, and a 4-foot painted median. The travel and bicycle lane widths remain unchanged from the original plan. A 5-foot sidewalk will be constructed on one side of the roadway. There will be one travel lane in each direction, and the median will be painted, as the previously planned raised median presents logistical constraints. Traffic signals will be installed at major intersections as required by Public Works, and a signal at Tapo Canyon Road and Lost Canyons Drive 554

NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS DEVELPOMENT REVIEW SUMMARY
2 NC 5/3-26(dsf)
is currently under evaluation. The lake area will be reconfigured to function as a multi- purpose water body, serving as a retention basin, irrigation source, flood control facility during heavy rain, and emergency water supply for fire events. The lake will be filled with potable water. One new potable water tank is proposed within the Lost Canyons development, in addition to the existing smaller tank. The development will continue to operate as a private gated community.

Executive Board members asked questions and made comments relating to: The project timeline, the number of homes south of Lost Canyons, the reasoning for Lots 363 and 364, average home and lot sizes, an armed or manned gatehouse, use of flock cameras, open space, public trails, trailheads and parking, trailhead amenities, the purpose and permanence of designated open space, tentative tract map changes, the Williamson Act, hazardous conditions near the Tapo Canyon Road and Lost Canyons Drive intersection, the phasing of street improvements, manholes and sidewalks, future consideration of development on open space south of Lost Canyons Drive, and sewage line connections. Comments included that street improvements for Tapo Canyon Road and Lost Canyons Drive should be prioritized and completed in phase one.

The applicant responded to the above questions as follows: The project timeframe is current, with phase one underway, and an agreement has been entered into with Toll Brothers. Proposed lot sizes are 60 by 100 feet, 60 by 120 feet, 65 by 100 feet, and 90 by 110 feet, with homes ranging from 2,000 to 4,000 square feet. The community will be gated. Trailhead development will occur, and existing concrete golf cart paths will be converted into pedestrian trails. Trails south of Lost Canyons Drive and the existing paths to the north will be publicly accessible. Community trail access will be provided along the northern edge of the project area, as shown in Exhibit 8, Conceptual Trails Plan from the Proposed Whiteface Specific Plan – Volume II. Trailheads with public parking will be constructed and granted to the park district. An active park area will also be provided by the developer at the Bennett Road trailhead off Tapo Canyon Road. The two lots south of Lost Canyons Drive are owned by Hillwood Capital, the former owner of the Lost Canyons Golf Club, and are needed to provide access to their land in Dry Canyon. Tapo Canyon Road improvements, originally planned for phase five, are now scheduled for phase two. A new sewer line is included in the plan. The former home site locations will be designated primarily as open space, with the intent to permanently preserve them as open space.

Upon conclusion of the discussion, the following motion was made by Sparky Cohen and seconded by Emmy Sundeen:

MOTION: Recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Planned Development Permit
Modification, and Tentative Map for the Lost Canyons development to eliminate the golf course, relocate 180 approved single-family dwellings from the south side of Lost Canyons Drive to the north side, and changes to the development and design standards, with recommendation to complete the easternly portion of Lost Canyons Drive and Tapo Canyon Road in Phase 1, not Phase 2
Executive Board vote: 10 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Audience vote: 3 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Unincorporated Area vote: None
The motion carried unanimously.
555
GPA20240003 ZS20250003 SPS20250002 PDS20250003 TT20250002 Supplemental (ngb)

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
June 3, 2026
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sean Gibson, Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 11.A.1 TO

CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE

APPLICATION OF NPLC LOST CANYONS, LLC, FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA-2024-0003), ZONE CHANGE (Z-S-2025-0003), SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SP-S-2025-0002), PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MODIFICATION (PD-S-2025-0003), AND
TENTATIVE MAP (TT-2025-0002) TO MODIFY THE APPROVED 364- LOT, 1,770 -ACRE LOST CANYONS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT;

LOCATED WEST OF TAPO CANYON ROAD, EAST OF COPPERSTONE

LANE, NORTH OF ANDERSON DRIVE AND DITCH ROAD, AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF LOST CANYONS DRIVE.

Subsequent to the release of the staff report for the above-referenced item, the following conditions have been modified or added, and three public comment emails were received.

The Public Works Department modified the proposed traffic conditions (Tentative Map Conditions B-21 and B-31, and Planned Development Condition B-17) contained in the draft Planning Commission Resolution. The revised conditions are as follows.

Tentative Map
*B-21 Permittee must dedicate to the City that property which totals 60 feet in width of right-of-way for Lost Canyons Drive from Copperstone Lane to Tapo Canyon Road.
*B-31 Permittee must design all landscaping within any segment of public right-of-way to coincide with construction (widening) of that street. The City Engineer and City's Landscape Architect must approve the landscaping installation for that section before final acceptance by the City.

Planned Development Permit
*B-17 Permittee must construct all landscaping within any segment of public right-of-way to coincide with construction (widening) of that street. The City Engineer and City's Landscape Architect must approve the landscaping installation for that section before final acceptance by the City.

SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA ITEM NO.

11.A.1
556
S-2
GPA20240003 ZS20250003 SPS20250002 PDS20250003 TT20250002 Supplemental (ngb) In addition, the following Public Works Maintenance conditions were inadvertently excluded from the draft Planning Commission Resolution and are now added:

Tentative Map Conditions
B-32 Permittee must design street trees, 24-inch box standard, along the Lost Canyons Drive and Tapo Canyon Road frontages of the project per Public Works landscape standards. The City Landscape Standard plate numbers to be used in relation to the street tree installation are as follows: SV 51- 120, SV 52-40, SV 52-50, and SV 51-20. The street tree irrigation must be supplied by the property owner's irrigation system, with a separate automatic irrigation valve for the street trees.

B-33 Permittee must design all new on-site trees a minimum of 6 feet behind street rights-of-way and public sidewalk, or have installed root barriers (18 inch deep by 10 feet long, minimum) for each tree located within 6 feet of the street rights-ofway and public sidewalk.

Planned Development Permit Conditions
B-32 Permittee must install street trees along the Lost Canyons Drive and Tapo Canyon Road as designed per the approved plans. The quantity of street trees must be as shown on the Permittee's approved drawings. All landscape-related work within the street right-of-way must be coordinated in advance with a Public Works Landscape Inspector.

B-33 Street trees within the public street right-of-way are to be coordinated in advance with the Public Works Landscape Inspector. Each street tree must be approved in advance by the City Landscape Inspector before planting.

B-34 All plant material at maturity must take into consideration potential vision situations throughout the project.

B-35 Permittee must maintain installed landscape materials until coverage reaches 80%, as verified by the Public Works Landscape Inspector and the Permittee's Landscape consultant, before planted areas can be turned over to the HOA for permanent maintenance. Before transfer of maintenance responsibility, all distressed, dying, and dead plant materials must be replaced to the satisfaction of the City Landscape Inspector. The irrigation system must also be tested for functionality. Before transfer to the HOA for permanent maintenance, all nonfunctioning irrigation facilities/improvements must be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Landscape Inspector.
557
S-3
GPA20240003 ZS20250003 SPS20250002 PDS20250003 TT20250002 Supplemental (ngb) Staff also received two public emails from Debbie Wall, dated May 31, 2026, and one from Teresa Jordan, dated June 1, 2026. (attached).

Attachments:

Email (1) from Debbie Wall dated May 31, 2026
Email (2) from Debbie Wall dated May 31, 2026
Letter from Teresa Jordan dated June 1, 2026
558
From: planningcomments
To: Elizabeth Richardson
Cc: Nikolette Baer
Subject: FW: Lost Canyons Developments
Date: Monday, June 01, 2026 8:37:17 AM
Importance: High
Elizabeth,
Please add this to your supplemental and possible response. It may also be helpful to email her back and let her know it’s just the 1 lot off of Anderson and no longer an emergency road.

Thanks,
Sean
Sean Gibson, AICP
Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
(805) 583-6383 [email protected]
From: Debbie Wall < >
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2026 5:33 PM
To: planningcomments <[email protected]>
Subject: Lost Canyons Developments
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.

Greetings,
My name is Deborah “Debbie” Wall, my address is
.

Unfortunately, I have a conflicting appointment on June 3rd and will be unable to attend the Simi Valley Planning Commission meeting for the Lost Canyons project. I have personally attended and participated in the majority of the meetings regarding this proposed development.

As mentioned in previous Planning Commission meetings regarding the project, I understand that at one time, all of our properties were built on vacant land. This project, however, has some built-in "cautions" which demand thorough consideration.
559
The Simi Fire of 2003 burned down the west side of Anderson Drive and to the northernmost property line of 3162 Anderson Drive. One of our neighbors had to man a fire hose as fire personnel were spread too thin.

Our streets were clogged with "looky-loos" to the point that we were unable to get vehicles out of our driveway. Police were also maxed out and unable to send out officers to unclog our street.

In the past few years, we have had two fires just north of Anderson Drive, which attracted more nosy people and vehicles.

We were originally told by the developer that Anderson Dr. would be used only for emergency ingress and egress. It has already been proven that this idea brings a great potential for bodily injury or loss of life. By calculating the number of new structures with an average of two cars per structure, there is a potential for thousands of vehicles attempting to exit via Anderson Drive in an emergency situation.

All vehicles exiting south on Anderson Drive need to travel on one of the access streets to the Simi Valley Hospital, thus potentially interfering with the ingress and egress of emergency travel to the hospital.

Currently, two estate properties are planned for construction north of Anderson Drive. Where will the construction vehicles enter for this construction? We are on a narrow two-lane County Road.

In my humble opinion, the Lost Canyons Project is “landlocked”, lacking adequate roads for the safety of the existing community and potential additional development properties.

Trusting in your wisdom for the safety of the community.

Debbie Wall
560
From: Debbie Wall
To: Elizabeth Richardson
Subject: Re: New estate property on Anderson Drive.

Date: Monday, June 01, 2026 2:32:29 PM
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.

Thank you, Elizabeth. I truly appreciate your timely responses. Yes, please include both my responses.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

Debbie Wall
On Monday, June 1, 2026 at 02:14:15 PM PDT, Elizabeth Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for your follow up email Debbie.

Any expansion for more lots on the south end of the Lost Canyons would require a public hearing. The only exception would be if someone wanted to split the lot into two using SB9. SB-9 is a State law that allows a single family parcel to be divided into two without a public hearing. There are specific requirements for lot size and development of these types of lot.

Yes this new lot will be connected to City sewer. My understanding is the City will not require homes to be connected to the sewer line but I will verify that for you.

Construction in the street would require permits and coordination by the Public Works Division.

Would you like this second email to be included as correspondence to the Planning Commission?
Thank you,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Richardson
Senior Planner
Environmental Services Department
City of Simi Valley
(805) 583-6334
[email protected]
From: Debbie Wall < >
561
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2026 2:06 PM
To: Elizabeth Richardson <[email protected]>
Subject: New estate property on Anderson Drive.

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.

Thank you, Elizabeth.

I appreciate your time and your response to my query regarding the Lost Canyons Project.

My concerns remain. What system is in place to limit the expansion from one estate property to multiple estate properties? What safety measures are in place to ensure the safety of ingress and egress on Anderson Drive?
Additionally, our homes all have septic tanks. Does the estate property have city sewage hookups? This will definitely affect our properties in multiple areas. Anderson Drive, Blue Ridge Circle, and Luray Circle only have one way in and one way out of our development. Utilizing Anderson Dr. for property construction and sewer main extension will severely limit our access and safety. Additionally, a sewer line may preclude the sale of our properties without connecting to the sewer system.

I vote "no" on the addition of an estate property to Anderson Drive and also Ditch Road for the aforementioned reasoning.

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.

Respectfully,
Debbie Wall
562

June 1, 2026
Simi Valley Planning Commission
Simi Valley City Hall
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Re: Agenda Item No. 11.A.1(GPA-2024-0003, Z-S-2025-0003, SP-S-2025-0002, PD-S-2025-0003, TT-2025-0002, NPLC
Lost Canyons, LLC: To consider a recommendation to
the City Council on the application of NPLC Lost
Canyons, LLC, for a General Plan Amendment(GPA-2024-
0003), Zone Change(Z-S-2025-0003), Specific Plan
Amendment(SP-S-2025-0002), Planned Development Permit
Modification(PD-S-2025-0003), and Tentative Map
(TT-2025-0002) to modify the approved 364-lot, 1,770-
acre Lost Canyons Development Project, located west of
Tapo Canyon Road, east of Copperstone Lane, north of
Anderson Drive and Ditch Road, and north and south of
Lost Canyons Drive).

Dear Members of the Commission:

I am opposed to the aforementioned changes for the
following reasons:

#1 - EXHIBIT 4 Part 1, Environmental Impact Report(EIR) Addendum No. 1, For the Lost Canyons Specific Plan
Project, EXHIBIT 4, Section 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW PROCESS, it is stated on Page 1-3, second
paragraph after numbers 1-4, that “The City has
determined that the Project would have similar or
reduced environmental impacts from those described
in the certified EIR. There are no new significant
environmental impacts or previously identified
significant impacts made more severe by changes
in the Project, new circumstances, and/or new
information. Therefore, the City has determined
that a subsequent EIR is not required pursuant to
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Rather the
City has determined that an EIR addendum should
be prepared as the appropriate CEQA document to

563
2 address the Project in accordance with State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15164”.
#2 - Page 1-3, it is stated, last paragraph, that
“State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164© provides
that an EIR addendum need not be circulated for
public review”.
#3 - Page 3-3, it is stated, under Section 3.0
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST, last paragraph, last
sentence, that “Additionally, this EIR Addendum
demonstrates that no new mitigation measures are
required beyond the mitigation measures that were
previously identified in the 2011 EIR as well as
the measures and conditions that are contained in
the Project’s regulatory permits from CDFW, USWS,
USACE, and the RWQCB”.

#4 - Page 3-118, it is stated, under Section 3.14.1
2011 EIR, second paragraph, that “The 2011 EIR
disclosed that the Project Site is located near
areas designated by the state at very high fire
hazard, and by the VCFPD as high fire hazard areas”.
#5 - Page 3-118, it is stated, third paragraph, that
“The 2011 EIR disclosed that the Approved Project
would result in risks of wildfire ignition during
construction related to construction equipment
that may emit sparks that would present a fire
risk of, especially during site clearance”.
#6 - Page 3-118, it is stated, fourth paragraph, second sentence, that “The 2011 EIR disclosed that the
additional traffic could slow emergency response
and evacuations if they needed to occur during
construction of the Project. However, the 2011
EIR determined that with adherence to City codes
and requirements during construction, the Approved
Project would result in less than significant
impacts related to fire hazards”.
#7 - Page 3-118, it is stated, fifth paragraph, that
“The 2011 EIR disclosed that fire stations in
the vicinity of the Project Site had capacity to
serve the Approved Project, and the water supply
was adequate to support firefighting requirements
564
3 for the Approved Project. As discussed in the
2011 EIR, the Approved Project would be expected
to require a minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons
per minute(gpm) for a 2-hour duration to provide
sufficient water to fire fighters during an
emergency, which can be provided by existing water
tanks in the area in conjunction with the new
water tank proposed for the northeastern portion
of the Project Site”.
#8 - Page 3-118, it is stated, sixth paragraph, that
“The 2011 EIR specified that the Approved Project
must implement mitigation measures 4.12.1 through
and 4.12.10”.
#9 - Page 3-118, it is stated, last paragraph, that
“As response times and fire flows will meet VCFPD’s
service standards with implementation of the
Approved Project, impacts related to fire services
for the Approved Project were determined in the
2011 EIR to be less than significant”.

The May 18, 2026 Sandy Fire number of aerial fire
fighting equipment, number of firefighters from
various jurisdictions, the acre feet of water
from the Calleguas Bard Reservoir/Wood Ranch Dam
used to control the blaze, the 10 days it took to
control the wildfire, the scorched 2,200+ acres,
the 44,000 evacuated residents and hundreds who
received evacuation warnings, the SSFL, etc. make the
statement no longer applicable; thus NULL and VOID!
The time that the Sandy Fire started differs in
the City Council’s May 26, 2026 Special Meeting
approved Emergency Resolution amending the City
Manager’s Emergency Proclamation, and in the City
Manager’s May 21, 2026 Emergency Proclamation!

#10 - Page 3-149, Section 3.19.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS, Environmental Issues, WILDFIRE, under “a)
Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?” “No Substantial
Change From Previous Analysis” box checked!

No wonder the City’s Emergency Operations Plan(EOP)
update has not been promulgated to date!
565
4 No wonder the Simi Valley Municipal Code Title 4 -
Public Safety, Chapter 5(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS),
and Chapter 6(FIRE PREVENTION) to date has not
been updated!
No wonder the City/City Council/Staff/etc. need
indemnification!
The City’s FY 2026-27 FY27 GOAL of updating the
Emergency Operations Plan now seems farcicle!
If the Emergency Operations Plan Update does take
place in FY27, I ask that the Planning Commission
take part in the EOP planning process!
I also ask the Planning Commission to request the
City Council to update the Simi Valley Municipal
Code Title 4 - Public Safety Chapter 5(EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS), and Chapter 6(FIRE PREVENTION) ASAP
because there will be wildfires in the future!
I highly recommend reading the Ventura County Star
May 17, 2026 article “How much water was used”!
If this, not the lack of funding, is the reason for
the Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council not compiling
the Cities of Moorpark, Simi Valley, and Thousand
Oaks’ Community Wildfire Protection Plans(CWPPs)
shame on whomever the person(s) is/are that is/are
behind jeopardizing all of the City’s constituents‘
health, safety, and welfare, and all properties!
Thank God that I oppose Agenda items that will make
me a party to ill-advised/ill-conceived decisions!
#11 - The 2011 certified EIR, did not consider fire
season being year-round as it now is!
#12 - The 2011 certified EIR, did not consider climate
change!
#13 - In 2024, the Mountain Fire in Ventura County
was caused by a bad decision that the Ventura
County Fire Department made; debris under a
tractor wheel re-ignited due to Santa Ana winds!
This led to evacuation orders, and hundreds of
homes destroyed! Cause: HUMAN ERROR!
566
5 #14 - In 2026, the Sandy Fire in Simi Valley, has been reported as being ignited by a spark from a
tractor clearing the area and hitting a rock.

The wildfire took 10 days to be fully contained.

Even though still under investigation; Cause:

HUMAN ERROR!

1. Were permits issued for the clearing?

2. Was the use of goats for clearing considered?
#15 - Page 3-149, Section 3.19.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS, Environmental Issues, WILDFIRE, under “b)
Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of
wildfire?” “No Substantial Change From Previous
Analysis” box checked!
As if people whom evacuated due to the Sandy Fire
were not anxious and stressed enough, they then had
to contend with cleaning ash, soot, dust, and other
airborne particles that may have been deposited
inside and outside of homes and businesses, vehicles,
their properties, etc. after repopulation!
#16 - Page 3-149, Section 3.19.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS, Environmental Issues, WILDFIRE, under “c)
Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure(such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?”
“No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis” box
checked!
#17 - Page 3-149, Section 3.19.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS, Environmental Issues, WILDFIRE, under “d)
Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?” No Substantial
Change From Previous Analysis” box checked!
#18 - Page 3-150, it is stated “If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high
567
6 fire hazard zones would the Project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?”
“No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The
2011 EIR determined that the Approved Project would
not impair the implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. The 2011 EIR discussed
that the Proposed Project would include adequate
primary and secondary access roads, which would allow
for adequate access during an emergency such as a
wildland fire.”
“The Propose Project would result in similar impacts
related to emergency evacuation as would the Approved
Project given that the Proposed Project would result
in similar roadway infrastructure being developed to
evacuate the Project Site and because the Approved
Project would not result in an increase in the number
of units or individuals that would need to evacuate
the Project Site when compared to the Approved
Project In conclusion, the Proposed Project would
not result in any new significant impacts related
to this threshold.” Future ADUs, STRs, JADUs!
The width of Tapo Canyon Road is proposed to be
reduced from 52 feet to 45 feet wide with one lane
of traffic in each direction…” I am opposed to
this change!
#19 - Page 3-150, it is stated “b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As with
the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would
occur within a very high fire hazard severity zone.

The Proposed Project would potentially result in
increased exposure of people and buildings to
wildland fires, as would occur with the Approved
Project.” The mitigation measures would be the
2011 EIR 4.12.1 through 4.12.10! Not enough!
568
7 #20 - Page 3-150, it is stated “c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure(sucj as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment? No Substantial Change
from Previous Analysis...” I disagree!
#21 - Page 3-151, it is stated “d) Expose people or
structures to significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes? No Substantial Change from Previous
Analysis...” I disagree!
#22 - Page 3-151, Conclusion, it is stated “The Project would not result in any new or substantially
increased effects related to wildfire that were not
already previously evaluated and discussed in the
2011 EIR that was prepared for the Approved Project.

Mitigation measures from the 2011 EIR relating to
wildfire continue to apply...” I disagree!
#23 - Possible connection to a septic system may occur
for 2 lots!
#24 - Reduction of side and rear setbacks is proposed!

Sincerely,
Teresa Jordan
ATTACHMENTS:

May 7, 1997, Jordan Letter to the Simi Valley Planning
Commission. (5 Pages)
November 17, 2010, Jordan Letter to the Simi Valley
Planning Commission. (2 Pages)
April 18, 2017, Jordan NOTES of City’s Emergency
Operations Plan meeting. (2 Pages)
January 7, 2004, Teresa Jordan Testimony before the
Governor’s Office Blue Ribbon Fire Commission
Public Hearing on the 2003 Wildfire. (5 Pages)
569
8 570
April 18, 2017 - 2:00 P.M. - Mr. White and Theresa Ramirez Meeting with Emergency Management Group.

Update of the City’s Emergency Plan.

Timeframe of Update.
* Terrorism - Expanding staff knowledge.
* Hazards - Fire, Flood.
* Standardizations.

Dispatch Center can go to Thousand Oaks Sheriff’s Center.

Still have 2 EOCs!
May 13, 2017 - Expo.

Logistic and command trailer can be hitched to any vehicle.

Grant.

CERT, 1400 members, 30 at present, specialized.

Participants in teens and and senior years.

Plan has been updated!
Simplifying the 2001 Plan. State has started process.

Relationships in agencies more important than having a
reference type docs!
Policy info from 2001 docs will take priority!
State no longer going _________________________________.

Lives, property, enviro & restoring vital services what drives the update & emergency planning!
3 volunteers work with Theresa & Mr. White.

Cellphones - 9/11 Reverse program need to register with County. (Privacy issues is reason why City not get
phone number from the County.)
571
2 City Manager still main person.

Requested be notified on the public input.

Online response.

Ramirez contact.

572
573
574
Governor’s Blue Ribbon Fire Commission
January 7, 2004

Page 1 of 118 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR’S BLUE RIBBON FIRE COMMISSION
BEFORE THE GOVERNOR’S BLUE

RIBBON FIRE COMMISSION,
Senator William Campbell, Chair
)
)
)
)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
January 7, 2004
Ventura County, California
)
CHAIR CAMPBELL: [mid-sentence] laryngitis. And for anybody in politics, laryngitis is a catastrophic illness. But we’ll try and see how long the voice holds up. We’d like to first of all welcome you to Ventura County. It was the intent of the commission to hold one meeting in each county of the five counties involved in the October/November fires here in Southern California. So, we’d like to ask you to stand at this point and we’d ask the chairperson of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, Judy Mikels, to lead us in the pledge of our flag.
[Pledge of Allegiance is recited.]
CHAIR CAMPBELL: Thank you. If I might go over some details for the members of the commission. The way in which you turn on your mike is you press the button, the green button, at the bottom. And when you press it a second time, it will turn it off.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is William Campbell and I’m Chair of the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on the fire. The commission members and I welcome you to this third hearing in a review of the state’s efforts to combat the destructive series of wildland and wildland urban interface fires that scourged Southern California last October and November. The fires burned nearly three-quarters of a million acres, destroyed over 3,600 homes and took the lives of 22 people. And now we are witnessing the tragic aftermath of these fires. Fifteen people lost their lives when a church camp was inundated by a mudslide, resulting from the loss of protective vegetation due to the fires. As the former Chairman of the California State Legislature Select Committees on Fire Services, and as Joint Committee on Fire, Police and Emergency Disaster Services, I have participated in several different reviews of federal, state and local firefighting efforts. We owe it to our communities and the residents and the brave firefighters to take this opportunity to ascertain what government, the private sector, our communities, and 575
Governor’s Blue Ribbon Fire Commission
January 7, 2004

Page 115 of 118 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
to the public safety all across the country. I'm here today to pledge NFPA's assistance to the commission's efforts. Our staff and our committees will be happy to assist you in any way possible. We all share your goal of strengthening public safety. Although most of the elected officials have left, I would like to just add one comment. You all have a very significant challenge in front of you. But the fortunate thing for you, is you have the experts that are probably the cream of the crop, not only in the United States but throughout the world in trying to address this problem. The people that you have been hearing from today, and many of the other fire service leaders that are not here today, really understand this problem and can help you solve this very serious issue. So it is very fortunate that the problem is here with this level of expertise that you have to help you deal with this serious issue. Thank you.

CHAIR CAMPBELL: Thank you very much, Gary. Mrs. Theresa Jordan. Mrs. Jordan, you have submitted at least 60 pages, which we are going to make part of the official record. With that understanding, would you be as succinct as possible?
MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, this letter is completely different from anything else that I have submitted, but it does touch base on all the issues that I have pretty much covered in all the letters. It's about 10 minutes, but if you'd like to just give me 5 minutes to read into it, then you have the letter.

CHAIR CAMPBELL: If you would summarize, and we would accept the letter and put the full letter in the testimony.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'll read at least the first three pages.

CHAIR CAMPBELL: Fair enough.

MRS. JORDAN: Good afternoon, members of the commission. Theresa Jordan, Simi Valley resident. I have a letter on the planning decisions discussion topic that I will read into the record, copies have been provided for your consideration. My letter reads:

Dear Members of the Commission:

Why, when Ventura County sustained small property losses and no deaths, even though over 170,000 of land burned, am I before you? Because, more could have been done previous to the Simi Valley fire incident to keep the blaze smaller. Had the Ventura County Fire Protection District anticipated the fire becoming a runaway train since the winds in the canyons are erratic, the impacts to our westerly 576
Governor’s Blue Ribbon Fire Commission
January 7, 2004

Page 116 of 118 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
neighbors would have been different. A smaller blaze would have freed up firefighting resources badly needed elsewhere and make a big difference in the areas that sustained loss of life and high property destruction. Because while the counties of San Diego and San Bernardino, and locally the city of Moorpark, have agendized the fire incidents, the city of Simi Valley has not. The city of Moorpark held a workshop for its citizens. My city has not. Because not enough was done and is being done for the independent living, legally blind, because a person who had had recent hip surgery was told to leave her vehicle and had to walk home while other drivers were allowed with their vehicles into the same vicinity into the west end of town, because people were allowed to gawk within close range of the fire on the easterly end of town, because a horrendous traffic snarl was allowed to take place at the intersection of Yosemite Avenue and Alamo Street, which would have hampered emergency vehicles and evacuation of residents, had this been necessary, because somewhere down the line community's multi-hazard functional plans broke down, and because these problems are a symptomatic of the deficiencies allowed in the development and emergency planning process due to the unjust postponement of community's comprehensive general plan updates. Public safety must never be compromised. Members of the commission, from all of the news articles that I have read while numerous problems affected the outcome of these catastrophic incidents, one of the common problems that encumbered communications, stretched resources, fire warnings, evacuations, etc., in every community was planning – inadequate, inaccurate, and/or the lack of. While the local government level development process is cut and dry, the same cannot be said about emergency preparedness and response planning, even though the two go hand in glove. In the 15-plus years that I have participated in the public hearing process for numerous development projects in my city, the one issue that I opposed most of them on is public safety. I've done so because these two words mean different things in my city, and apparently the same seems to be true of other communities.

Police protection is emphasized above emergency preparedness. If communities realize that it is better not making the news because disaster did not strike in town, then being number one or two on this FBI's list of safest cities, then the emergency preparedness part of the planning process, currently consisting of education the public at schools, groups, organizations and emergency exposition dates, will finally get its place in the sun, uniformity. Otherwise public safety with regard to fires will continue to be a menu of emergency expo day, where fire trucks are displayed, families take pictures with firefighting personnel, 577
Governor’s Blue Ribbon Fire Commission
January 7, 2004

Page 117 of 118 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
printed fire prevention information is readily available, and everyone is happy until disaster strikes and chaos occurs. In Simi Valley, the major emphasis of these emergencies preparedness expos continues to be public education on earthquake preparedness. For the past couple of years the expo has been combined with the Chamber of Commerce Street Fair. This combination takes away from what the participant learned and the information sheets end up in some drawer, box, or altogether discarded. Members of the commission, also in my city, public safety with regard to emergencies is not addressed, or is inadequately addressed in development projects, negative declarations, and in environmental impact reports. The only process that can back up any deficiencies in emergency planning issues is the general plan updated, specifically the safety elements multi-hazard functional plan policy since the citizenry believes that firefighting resources will save them from themselves in extraordinary situations. News articles of people previously voicing concerns that their homes could be bypassed during a fire incident have either been ignored or never read. Otherwise, more people would have educated themselves on how to safeguard property and lives. Instead, folks end up fending for themselves, evacuating at the last minute, or taking a dangerous stand to protect their property. I doubt that the fire incidents of October 2003 will serve as an incentive for communities to undertake the comprehensive general plan update. It is high time that elected and appointed government officials and agencies personnel walk in the shoes of disaster victims and survivors. Otherwise, in California, we will suffer more and deadlier catastrophes. Members of the commission, it is heartbreaking to read the mind boggling accounts of the victims and survivors, as well as of the firefighting crews, because in May 1985, Mr. William Medigovich, then Director of the California Governor's Office of Emergency Service, stated in the letter to county administrators, city managers, c hair persons, Boards of Supervisors, mayors, and the Emergency Services Director's coordinators that, "State and local governments share a responsibility to be prepared for emergencies which threaten the citizens and resources of California. We must develop and maintain plans and programs that enable us to discharge this responsibility in time of emergency. It is essential that state and local plans create a more effective emergency response structure." More flabbergasting has been the falling on deaf ears, and the emergency management and planning process from the Governor's Office of Emergency Services to the local government agencies of Mr. Medigovich's statements on the state-of-the-art, multi-hazard, functional plan guidance. "With teamwork and the application of this guidance, we can improve emergency management 578
Governor’s Blue Ribbon Fire Commission
January 7, 2004

Page 118 of 118 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
capabilities throughout the state. This product will be used as the cornerstone for future emergency response planning efforts. I say this because the chronology of various disaster incidents on the OES website illustrate the lack of follow-through and lessons not learned in light of the fact that it took the state 9 years to update it's own emergency plan. People should not – (UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER): (Whispering) Could you pause for a second? MRS. JORDAN: (Whispering) Huh? Oh, I'm sorry.

CHAIR CAMPBELL: Finish the paragraph..

MRS. JORDAN: Okay. Um, " . . . This product will be used as a cornerstone for future emergency response plannings." I say this because the chronology of various disaster incidents on the OES website illustrate the lack of follow-through and lessons not learned in light of the fact that it took the state 9 years to update it's own emergency plan. People should not have to concern themselves over rebuilding construction fraud, or fighting bureaucratic red tape with insurance carriers unnecessarily. And you have my letter.

CHAIR CAMPBELL: Ms. Jacobs [sic], I want to commend you, and I mean this sincerely, if we had a lot of citizens who devoted the time and effort to doing what they could in the communities, the state would be a lot better off. I appreciate the time you spent here today.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you.

CHAIR CAMPBELL: I also very much appreciate the information you've provided this commission, and I want to thank you very much and wish you a very Happy New Year.

MRS. JORDAN: You too. Thank you.

CHAIR CAMPBELL: Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, I want to thank the California Highway Patrol, particularly you Commissioner HELMICK, and the officers that were here today to provide security for this meeting. We thank them very much. And now, ladies and gentlemen, we sit adjourned. [Laughter.]
579
580
581
582
583
584
Attachment E
Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 1
The following studies listed in the EIR Addendum Appendices are available for review at the City of Simi Valley Environmental Services Department (Planning Division) Public Counter, located at 2929 Tapo Canyon Road during normal business hours or by contacting by phone or email at (805) 583-6769 / [email protected].

Summary of Cultural and Paleontological Resources Studies – Chambers Group Reduced Footprint Impact Analysis – Glenn Luckos Associates Air Quality Assessment Memorandum – Michael Baker International Energy Assessment Memorandum – Michael Baker International Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Memorandum – Michael Baker International
Noise and Vibration Assessment Memorandum – Michael Baker International Hydrology and Hydraulics Study – JLC Engineering & Consulting, Inc Water System Master Plan – RTM Engineering Consultants, LLC Sewer System Master Plan – RTM Engineering Consultants, LLC 585
APPLICATION FOR: GPA-2024-0003, Z-S-2025-
0003, SP-S-2025-0002, PD-S-2025-0003, AND
TT-2025-0002
Addendum No. 1 to the EIR
For the Lost Canyons Specific Plan Project
Prepared for City of Simi Valley
Department of Environmental Services
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, California 93063
Prepared by Psomas
150 South Arroyo Parkway, Suite 102
Pasadena, California 91105
May 2026
586
Table of Contents
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT i
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background.............................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Regulatory Guidance...........................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Environmental Review Process ......................................................................................1-3

2.0 Project Description and Setting ...................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Location....................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................................2-1

2.3 Proposed Project ..................................................................................................................2-1

3.0 Environmental Checklist................................................................................................... 3-3

3.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................3-4

3.1.1 2011 EIR .......................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.1.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis........................................................................ 3-8

3.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................3-11

3.2.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................3-11

3.2.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis......................................................................3-16

3.3 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................3-26

3.3.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................3-26

3.3.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis......................................................................3-42

3.4 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................3-51

3.4.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................3-51

3.4.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis......................................................................3-54

3.5 Energy....................................................................................................................................3-56

3.5.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................3-56

3.5.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis......................................................................3-56

3.6 Geology and Soils...............................................................................................................3-61

3.6.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................3-61

3.6.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis......................................................................3-69

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................3-73

3.7.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................3-73

3.7.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis......................................................................3-74

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..............................................................................3-79 587
Table of Contents
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ii
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR

3.8.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................3-79

3.8.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis......................................................................3-83

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................................................3-87

3.9.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................3-87

3.9.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis......................................................................3-92

3.10 Land Use and Planning....................................................................................................3-97

3.10.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................3-97

3.10.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis......................................................................3-98

3.11 Mineral Resources.......................................................................................................... 3-100

3.11.1 2011 EIR .....................................................................................................................3-100

3.11.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis...................................................................3-102

3.12 Noise.................................................................................................................................... 3-103

3.12.1 2011 EIR .....................................................................................................................3-103

3.12.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis...................................................................3-108

3.13 Population and Housing............................................................................................... 3-115

3.13.1 2011 EIR .....................................................................................................................3-115

3.13.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis...................................................................3-116

3.14 Public Services................................................................................................................. 3-118

3.14.1 2011 EIR .....................................................................................................................3-118

3.14.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis...................................................................3-123

3.15 Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 3-126

3.15.1 2011 EIR .....................................................................................................................3-126

3.15.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis...................................................................3-127

3.16 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 3-129

3.16.1 2011 EIR .....................................................................................................................3-129

3.16.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis...................................................................3-131

3.17 Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................ 3-134

3.17.1 2011 EIR .....................................................................................................................3-134

3.17.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis...................................................................3-135

3.18 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................... 3-137

3.18.1 2011 EIR .....................................................................................................................3-137

3.18.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis...................................................................3-142

3.19 Wildfire............................................................................................................................... 3-149

3.19.1 2011 EIR .....................................................................................................................3-149

3.19.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis...................................................................3-149 588
Table of Contents
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT iii
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR

4.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 4-1

5.0 References .............................................................................................................................. 5-1