Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Calabasas planning commission approves 135‑unit Avalon housing project over safety and parking objections
Summary
The commission adopted PC Resolution 2026‑821 to approve a 135‑unit Avalon apartment project (27 low‑income units) on a 4‑to‑1 vote after extended debate over wildfire risk, parking waivers and environmental protections.
The Calabasas Planning Commission approved PC Resolution 2026‑821 on Aug. 6, 2026, authorizing the Avalon apartment development with 135 dwelling units, including 27 designated as lower‑income units. The motion to approve carried 4‑1 after a roll‑call vote. Commissioner Fassberg made the motion; the chair seconded and the commission subsequently voted to adopt the resolution.
Opponents said the approval glossed over public‑safety and environmental concerns. Commissioner Harrison said the project’s supporting analyses “don't even include the actual facts from the 8 day Calabasas fire of 1996,” arguing that evacuation and fire‑spread models in the EIR understate risk. A resident who spoke during public comment, Joe Chilco, urged commissioners to consider recent research on development in high‑fire zones, saying “California's building practices are working against the goals of prudent public safety measures.”
Staff and the director said the project complies with the certified programmatic EIR and will be subject to mitigation measures. Planning staff confirmed the applicant’s Environmental Exemption Analysis was included as an attachment to the staff report and explained that, if the commission approves, staff will prepare and file the required notice of exemption with Los Angeles County and the State Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. Staff also noted the developer is eligible under state density bonus law for specified incentives and waivers tied to the proposed affordable unit percentage.
Commission discussion addressed multiple technical controls the city will use during implementation, including plan checks prior to building permits, archaeological monitors tied to mitigation measures, and director authority to approve minor modifications. Commissioners asked staff to track and report major design changes so that substantial modifications would return to the planning commission for review.
The commission’s vote was 4 in favor and 1 opposed. Commissioners did not adopt further conditions beyond those in the staff recommendation at the time of the vote. The decision is recorded as PC Resolution 2026‑821; staff indicated the implementation steps and filing of the notice of exemption will follow the commission’s approval.
