Planning commission backs shorter extension, benchmarks for Runkel Canyon buildout

The Simi Valley Planning Commission on June 18 voted to recommend that the City Council approve a two-year extension with benchmarks for development agreement DADash2025Dash0001, the fifth amendment to the original Runkel Canyon/Woodlands agreement, rather than the five-year extension requested by the developer.

The modification — which the commission will forward to the council as a recommendation — was approved by the commission after a public hearing that included staff presentations, comments from the applicant and multiple residents who urged tighter timelines and consequences for delays. The commission’s motion to shorten the proposed five-year extension to two years and ask the council to adopt performance benchmarks passed; the meeting record notes one abstention on the final vote and that the item will proceed to city council with the commission’s recommendations.

Principal planner Narayan Kunezakara told the commission the applicant, Runkel Canyon LLC, is seeking a five-year extension to move outstanding portions of the project to completion and to extend the development-agreement expiration to June 10, 2030. Kunezakara said the project covers about 1,595 acres and that remaining work includes 25 custom estate lots, 298 detached single-family units, 138 senior condominium units, a senior recreation facility, trails, open space and a public water tank. He also said a remaining affordable-housing in-lieu fee of $900,000 would be paid when zoning clearance is issued for the senior development.

James Vaughn, land-use counsel for Runkel Canyon LLC, said the developer is working closely with city staff and the homeowners association and asked for a five-year window to finish the remaining phases. “We fully anticipate to be able to complete the project within 5 years,” Vaughn said. Nick Biro, the applicant’s project manager, described plan submittals under review and said the team expects to submit administrative revisions for the senior buildings and to pursue permits for four initial estate lots in the coming weeks.

Multiple residents who live in The Woodlands subdivision told the commission they have repeatedly seen extensions without visible progress on the ground. Jason Chrisman, a resident, said, “all I’ve heard is a bunch of excuses,” and urged either shorter, incremental extensions or penalties and compensatory measures for the homeowners association. Other residents urged benchmarks, bonding or requiring the developer to pay HOA dues for unbuilt homes until they are completed and sold.

Deputy public works director Brent Seymour told the commission that geotechnical and engineering reviews remain a key technical step before construction can proceed in some areas. He said the city and the developer’s counsel have arranged for outside third-party reviewers under a memorandum of understanding and that the city’s consultant could review submitted geotechnical material rapidly once it is provided. “The goal is to identify what needs to be finished, what needs to be fixed, what needs to be repaired,” Seymour said.

An assistant city attorney told the commission that, under California law, the city has no clear statutory mechanism to impose monetary penalties of the kind residents requested in the hearing and that HOA-dues disputes are a civil matter between HOA members and the developer. The assistant city attorney said council could consider recommended benchmarks or deadlines as part of the commission’s recommendation to the council, but that automatic fines payable to the HOA were not a straightforward land-use remedy.

Staff provided additional project specifics during the hearing: the senior condominium component would comprise 26 buildings — 3 one-story duplexes, 13 two-story fourplexes and 10 two-story eightplexes — and the proposed condominium development would include about 296 parking spaces. Staff also reviewed the project’s approval history, noting initial entitlements in the mid-2000s and several subsequent amendments and extensions, and said that subdivision improvement agreements and replacement bonds must be in place before major site work can resume.

The formal action taken at the meeting was a resolution recommending that the City Council approve an amendment (DADash2025Dash0001) with a shortened two-year term and with recommended benchmarks for performance. Commissioners discussed alternatives including denial, a three-year term and a two-year term; the commission settled on two years plus benchmarks and forwarded the item to the council. The staff report notes there is no local appeal period for this recommendation, and the item will be considered by the City Council at a future meeting.

The record shows strong community frustration about years of delay, repeated extensions and visible unfinished work; residents asked the commission to recommend time-limited benchmarks and to press for clearer accountability. The commission’s recommendation narrows the requested extension and asks the City Council to adopt a structure of performance benchmarks for the developer to meet as the project advances.