Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves multiple Summerwind and Oak Valley development ordinances; resident warns about industrial conversion of gateway site
Summary
The Calamasa City Council approved second-reading ordinances on amendments to the Summerwind Ranch/Oak Valley specific plan and a development agreement for the Oak Valley logistics center; a public commenter urged reconsideration of a 115‑acre industrial designation that he said precludes retail or higher‑value uses.
The Calamasa City Council voted to approve second-reading ordinances related to the Summerwind Ranch/Oak Valley specific plan and development agreements for Summerwind Trails and the Oak Valley logistics site. The council also handled procedural recusals related to those items: Councilmember Garcia said he would recuse himself from voting on the Oak Valley Logistics Center item because of proximity to his residence.
Why it matters: The ordinances enact land-use and development-agreement changes across large parcels that shape the city's economic and land-use profile. One project discussed, the Bircher (Oak Valley) Logistics Center, covers roughly 115 acres and was described during public comment as planned to accommodate roughly 2.25 million square feet of industrial development.
What the council approved and procedural notes: City staff read the titles for three ordinance actions: ordinance no. 412 (Specific Plan Area 1 amendment for Summerwind Ranch, SPA 22‑01, on 853.4 acres), ordinance no. 413 (first amendment to a development agreement with Jen SoCal 1 LLC for Summerwind Trails on the same planning area), and ordinance no. 414 (development agreement with QR Bircher Oak Valley Owner LLC for the Bircher/Oak Valley Logistics Center on approximately 115 acres near the I‑10 overcrossings). Councilmember Cundiff moved to approve the consent calendar (which included these second‑reading adoptions), Councilmember Manley seconded, and the motion carried on an affirmative voice vote on the consent items. Councilmember Garcia announced he would abstain on item 7 (the Bircher Logistics Center ordinance) because of proximity to his home; staff made clear that if the council removed the item for separate discussion Garcia would have to leave the chamber.
Public comment and community concerns: Bill Thomas, a longtime resident, testified during public comment that the 115‑acre parcel subject to the Bircher Logistics Center approval is a gateway to the community and said the proposed industrial use would forfeit higher‑value retail or different technology/manufacturing opportunities. Thomas said the land could be more valuable as regional retail or for technology/manufacturing employers and urged seeking a different developer or use. He referenced the project's procedural history, saying the item first appeared for a reading during November 2020 and characterizing the choice to move forward with industrial zoning as a mistake.
Caveats: The council handled the items as consent-calendar second readings; staff and the council did not reopen hearings or present substantive new findings in the meeting transcript. The items were approved as read; where a council member recused, that abstention was recorded for that item.
Next steps: With the ordinances adopted on second reading as part of the consent calendar, further implementation steps (building permits, grading, and project-specific approvals) will follow per the development agreements and applicable permits. Council and staff did not set a separate new public hearing on these items at this meeting.
