Staff Report - Part 3 — Simi Valley City Council, February 28, 2022

Santa Susana Plaza Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project 38 City of Simi Valley Noise Study November 2021

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The updated General Plan Noise Element contains Goal N-1: Land Use Compatibility, which states, “Land use conflicts between various noise sources and other human activities are minimized.” To achieve this goal, the General Plan Update has identified a variety of policies to reduce the potential noise impacts to land use compatibility. Implementation of Policy N-1.1 (Noise Standards), Policy N-1.2 (Noise between Adjacent Uses), Policy N-1.3 (Mixed-Use Development Standards), Policy N-1.4 (Noise Attenuation Measures, and Policy N.1-5 (Sensitive Receptors), as well as compliance with the Municipal Code, would ensure the potential impacts to sensitive receptors due to exposure to noise levels that exceed the established local standards would be less than significant. Table 13: Simi Valley 2030 General Plan Update Applicable Goals and Policies, evaluates the Project’s consistency with the applicable goals provided in the City’s General Plan to determine whether the Project will result in adverse impacts to noise. Based on the evaluation, the Project would be consistent with all feasible and applicable goals listed in the City’s General Plan.

TABLE 13
SIMI VALLEY 2030 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE APPLICABLE GOALS AND POLICIES Goal Policy Consistency
N-1:

Land Use
Compatibility
N.1.1: Noise Standards. Require noise
attenuation for all development where the
projected exterior and interior noise levels
exceed those shown in Table 3, to the extent
feasible.

Consistent. As shown in Table 10 and Table 11,
exterior noise levels at the proposed residential
uses from operation of the existing loading zone
and car wash tunnel would be below 63 dB CNEL
for residential uses. In addition, interior noise
levels would be below the 45 dB CNEL threshold
for commercial uses.

N-1.2: Noise between Adjacent Uses.

Require that mixed-use and multifamily
residential developments demonstrate that
the design of the structure will adequately
isolate noise between adjacent uses
(orientation, window insulation, common
wall separation, floor/ceilings separation,
etc.).

N-1.3: Mixed-Use Development Standards.

Require, whenever physically possible, new
mixed-use development to locate loading
areas, parking lots, driveways, trash
enclosures, mechanical equipment, and
other noise sources away from the
residential portion of the development, and
apply physical construction standards
(equipment construction standards) to
reduce noise between uses.

N-1.4: Noise Attenuation Measures. Ensure
that all new development provides adequate
sound insulation or other protection from
existing and anticipated noise sources.

Consistent. As discussed above, interior noise
levels would be below the 45 dB CNEL threshold
for commercial/institutional sources.

N-1.5: Sensitive Receptors. Incorporate
ambient noise level considerations into land
use decisions involving schools, hospitals,
and similar noise-sensitive uses.

Consistent. As shown in Table 3, ambient noise
measurements ranged from a low of 48.9 dBA
southeast of the Project site along Alpine Street
to a high of 69.2 dBA to the northwest of the
Project site along Cochran Street. These high
noise levels were due to heavy traffic along
Cochran Street. However, as discussed above,
451
Santa Susana Plaza Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project 39 City of Simi Valley Noise Study November 2021
TABLE 13
SIMI VALLEY 2030 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE APPLICABLE GOALS AND POLICIES Goal Policy Consistency
exterior and interior noise level would be below
the 63 dB and 45 dB thresholds, respectively.

N-2:

Sensitive
Receptors
N-2.3: Noise Attenuation along Major
Arterials and Railroad Tracks. Require the
use of walls and berms in the design of
residential and other noise-sensitive land
uses that are adjacent to the 118 Freeway,
major arterials, and railroad tracks.

Consistent. The Project site is located
approximately 0.2 miles south of the 118
Freeway and no adjacent railroad tracks are
located within the vicinity. Additionally, as shown
in Table 9 and Table 13, roadway noise levels
along major arterials would not result in
significant impacts to adjacent sensitive land
uses.

N-2.4: Noise Studies for New Development.

Require the preparation of noise studies, as
deemed necessary by the Department of
Environmental Services, for new
development (especially residential
projects) along the freeway corridor, major
thoroughfares, and railroad tracks to ensure
that adequate sound attenuation from these
noise sources is provided.

N-3:

Stationary
Noise
N-3.1: Protection from Stationary Noise
Sources. Continue to enforce interior and
exterior noise standards to ensure that
sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to
excessive noise levels from stationary noise
sources, such as machinery, equipment,
fans, and air conditioning equipment.

N-3.3: Enforcement of Hours of
Construction Activity. Continue to enforce
restrictions on hours of construction activity
as to minimize the impacts of noise and
vibration from the use of trucks, heavy
drilling equipment, and other heavy
machinery to adjacent uses, particularly in
residential uses.

Consistent. Compliance with the City’s Municipal
Code and Goal N-3 of the City’s General Plan
would ensure that impacts associated with
construction-related noise would be minimized
and only occur during the approved hours for
construction activity.

CUMULATIVE NOISE
For purposes of this analysis, development of the related projects will be considered to contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces as distance from the source increases. As a result, only project and growth in the general area of the Project site would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Noise impacts are localized in nature and decrease with distance. Cumulative construction noise impacts have the potential to occur when multiple construction projects in the local area generate noise within the same time frame and contribute to the local ambient noise environment. It is expected that, as with the Project, the related projects would implement best management practices, which would minimize any noise-related nuisances during construction. Therefore, the combined construction noise impact of the related projects and the Project’s contribution would not cause a significant cumulative impact.

With regard to stationary sources, cumulative significant noise impacts may result from cumulative development. Stationary sources of noise that could be introduced in the area by cumulative projects could include mechanical equipment, loading docks, and parking lots. Since these projects would be 452
Santa Susana Plaza Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project 40 City of Simi Valley Noise Study November 2021
required to adhere to the City’s noise standards, all the stationary sources would be required to provide shielding or other noise abatement measures so as not to cause a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Moreover, due to distance, it is unlikely that noise from multiple cumulative projects would interact to create a significant combined noise impact. As such, it is not anticipated that a significant cumulative increase in permanent ambient noise levels would occur.

Roadway Noise
Table 14: Cumulative plus Project Roadway Noise Levels illustrates the change in noise levels from traffic volumes and from traffic generated by the Project. The difference in traffic noise between cumulative conditions and cumulative plus Project conditions represents the increase in noise attributable to Project-related traffic. As mentioned previously, roadway noise levels currently exceed the 63 dBA CNEL exterior standard for residential uses at Tapo Street north of Cochran Street (Intersection 5), Tapo Canyon Road south of Cochran Street (Intersection 3), along Alamo Street west of Tapo Street (Intersection 4) and along Cochran Street east and west of Tapo Canyon Road (Intersection 3). These roadway segments include both residential and commercial uses. As shown in Table 14, cumulative roadway noise levels would not result in any increases along these segments. Additionally, the maximum noise level increase along the analyzed roadways would be 0.3 dBA CNEL along Tapo Canyon Road north of SR-118 WB Ramps and 0.2 dBA CNEL along Tapo Canyon Road south of SR-118 WB Ramps (Intersection 1) where commercial uses are the most prominant. Consequently, Project-related traffic would not cause noise levels in areas where the ambient noise levels are below 60 dBA to increase by 5 dBA, where the ambient noise levels are between 60 to 65 dBA CNEL to increase by 3 dBA, and where the ambient noise levels already exceed 65 dBA to increase by 1.5 dBA. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in a permanent increase in noise levels above ambient levels in the vicinity of the Project site. Mobile vehicle related noise impacts would not be considered significant.

TABLE 14

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS
Intersection
No. Roadway Segment Adjacent Land Use
Cumulative
Cumulative plus
Project
dBA CNEL Difference
Tapo Canyon Road
1 North of SR-118
WB Ramps Commercial 64.9 65.2 +0.3
1 South of SR-118
WB Ramps Commercial 66.2 66.4 +0.2
2 North of SR-118 EB
Ramps Commercial 68.2 68.2 0.0
2 South of SR-118 EB
Ramps Commercial 67.5 67.5 0.0
3 North of Cochran
Street Commercial 67.4 67.4 0.0
3 South of Cochran
Street Residential 64.7 64.7 0.0
Tapo Street
4 North of Alamo
Street Residential 62.9 62.9 0.0
453
Santa Susana Plaza Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project 41 City of Simi Valley Noise Study November 2021
TABLE 14

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS
Intersection
No. Roadway Segment Adjacent Land Use
Cumulative
Cumulative plus
Project
dBA CNEL Difference
4 South of Alamo
Street Residential 63.8 63.8 0.0
5 North of Cochran
Street Commercial/Residential 64.4 64.4 0.0
5 South of Cochran
Street Commercial 65.5 65.5 0.0
Stearns Street
6 North of SR-118
WB Ramps Commercial 59.1 59.1 0.0
6 South of SR-118
WB Ramps Commercial 60.3 60.3 0.0
7 North of SR-118 EB
Ramps Commercial 61.4 61.4 0.0
7 South of SR-118 EB
Ramps Commercial 60.7 60.7 0.0
SR-118 WB Ramps (Off Tapo Canyon Road)
1 East of Tapo
Canyon Road Commercial 63.2 63.2 0.0
1 West of Tapo
Canyon Road Commercial 57.9 57.9 0.0
SR-118 EB Ramps (Off Tapo Canyon Road)
2 East of Tapo
Canyon Road Commercial 51.2 51.2 0.0
2 West of Tapo
Canyon Road Commercial 64.1 64.1 0.0
Alamo Street
4 East of Tapo Street Residential 63.5 63.5 0.0
4 West of Tapo
Street Residential 64.3 64.3 0.0
Cochran Street
3 East of Tapo
Canyon Road Commercial/Residential 65.8 65.8 0.0
3 West of Tapo
Canyon Road Commercial/Residential 66.0 66.0 0.0
5 East of Tapo Street Commercial/Residential 64.0 64.0 0.0 5 West of Tapo
Street Commercial/Residential 64.1 64.1 0.0
8 East of Stearns
Street Commercial/Residential 65.4 65.4 0.0
8 West of Stearns
Street Commercial/Residential 63.6 63.6 0.0
SR-118 WB Ramps (Off Stearns Street)
6 East of Stearns
Street Commercial 63.1 63.1 0.0
6 West of Stearns
Street Commercial 58.3 58.3 0.0
SR-118 EB Ramps (Off Stearns Street)
7 East of Stearns
Street Commercial 50.2 50.2 0.0
7 West of Stearns
Street Commercial 60.9 60.9 0.0
Source: Refer to Appendix B for roadway noise worksheets. 454
Operational Noise Level Contour Map – Loading Zone
FIGURE 12
316-001-21
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN METERS
0 100 25 50
N
W
orkman Av
e Kelsey St
15-
20 25-30
30-35
15-
20 20-
25 25-30
20-25 40-45
20-25 35-40
0-
5 10-15
Alpine St
Ta
p
o
St
20-25 45-50
30-35
30-35
30-35
0-5
5-10
0-5
5-10 50-55 >=55
Proposed
Residential
(R1)
455
Operational Noise Level Contour Map – Car Wash Tunnel
FIGURE 13
316-001-21
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN METERS
0 80 20 40
N
W
orkman Av
e
Kelsey St
15-20
<0
15-20
20-
25 25-30 20-25
40-45
20-25
35-40
10-15
Bidwell St
Ta
p
o
St
20-25
45-50
30-
35 30-35
0-5
0-5
10-15
5-10
10-15
25-30 40-45
5-10
10-
15 Proposed
Residential
(R2)
Proposed
Residential
(R3)
5-10
0-5 <0
45-50
456
Santa Susana Plaza Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project 44 City of Simi Valley Noise Study November 2021

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following noise attenuation measures are provided to reduce noise impacts during construction activities.

N-1: For all construction-related activities, noise-attenuation techniques shall be employed as needed to ensure that noise remains as low as possible during construction. The following noise-attenuation techniques shall be incorporated into contract specifications to reduce the impact of construction noise:

Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards and in good working condition.

Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction-staging areas away from sensitive uses, where feasible.

Schedule high noise-producing activities between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM to minimize disruption on sensitive uses.

Implement noise attenuation measures to the extent feasible, which may include but are not limited to temporary noise barriers or noise blankets around stationary construction noise sources.

Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible.

All stationary construction equipment (e.g., air compressors, generators, impact wrenches, etc.) shall be operated as far away from residential uses as possible and shall be shielded with temporary sound barriers, sound aprons, or sound skins.

Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes.

CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed Santa Susana Plaza Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project. The information contained in this noise study is based on the best available information at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (805) 413-4187.

Christ Kirikian, INCE Associate
Principal, Director of Air Quality & Acoustics
[email protected]
458
459
Monitoring Location: Site 1
Monitoring Date: 6/8/2021
Monitoring Period
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
13:19:14 51.5 53.4 49.4
13:20:14 52.0 53.6 50.8
13:21:14 50.7 53.1 49.4
13:22:14 50.7 52.8 49.1
13:23:14 51.1 52.4 49.5
13:24:14 57.3 62.9 49.5
13:25:14 49.3 50.3 47.7
13:26:14 49.1 51.0 47.0
13:27:14 50.6 54.8 48.0
13:28:14 50.4 52.3 48.7
13:29:14 49.1 51.1 47.8
13:30:14 48.1 50.3 46.7
13:31:14 47.7 50.2 46.0
13:32:14 49.7 51.5 47.7
13:33:14 50.2 54.2 48.5
13:34:14 50.0 49.9 49.6
15-minute LAeq 51.2
460
Monitoring Location: Site 2
Monitoring Date: 6/8/2021
Monitoring Period
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
13:37:38 56.2 65.6 47.9
13:38:38 56.2 67.6 49.6
13:39:38 53.9 59.3 49.9
13:40:38 56.9 69.0 49.9
13:41:38 55.5 66.9 48.6
13:42:38 50.9 58.7 48.3
13:43:38 58.3 68.2 48.6
13:44:38 53.0 66.9 48.5
13:45:38 56.7 67.8 49.7
13:46:38 58.1 69.1 47.4
13:47:38 49.3 51.2 47.9
13:48:38 50.4 53.9 48.3
13:49:38 59.4 69.4 48.9
13:50:38 55.8 63.4 50.4
13:51:38 57.6 68.0 49.1
13:52:38 55.1 54.5 53.9
15-minute LAeq 56.0
461
Monitoring Location: Site 3
Monitoring Date: 6/8/2021
Monitoring Period
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
13:54:58 56.9 70.1 45.3
13:55:58 54.9 60.6 48.7
13:56:58 51.8 60.3 46.4
13:57:58 50.8 57.1 46.2
13:58:58 50.0 57.0 45.1
13:59:58 55.4 68.4 44.9
14:00:58 50.5 62.8 45.5
14:01:58 47.2 49.0 45.5
14:02:58 49.8 56.2 45.7
14:03:58 51.2 61.7 46.9
14:04:58 47.3 52.5 45.3
14:05:58 47.1 49.7 45.2
14:06:58 52.2 62.2 45.3
14:07:58 46.4 49.4 44.5
14:08:58 47.0 53.3 42.8
14:09:58 43.9 44.6 43.0
15-minute LAeq 51.6
462
Monitoring Location: Site 4
Monitoring Date: 6/8/2021
Monitoring Period
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
14:15:13 48.9 81.1 44.8
14:16:13 45.6 47.9 43.7
14:17:13 45.9 49.3 43.3
14:18:13 46.7 54.8 44.2
14:19:13 50.0 59.0 45.2
14:20:13 47.1 50.3 45.3
14:21:13 46.7 52.1 43.9
14:22:13 44.6 46.9 43.0
14:23:13 51.0 61.2 43.7
14:24:13 46.8 52.4 44.0
14:25:13 52.6 62.0 45.1
14:26:13 47.8 51.2 45.2
14:27:13 52.6 58.9 46.0
14:28:13 49.4 54.9 45.9
14:29:13 47.0 51.0 44.1
14:30:13 48.8 49.1 48.7
15-minute LAeq 48.9
463
Monitoring Location: Site 5
Monitoring Date: 6/8/2021
Monitoring Period
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
14:35:00 69.8 74.6 59.7
14:36:00 74.0 86.8 56.9
14:37:00 67.9 73.4 59.0
14:38:00 69.9 79.7 59.6
14:39:00 69.2 76.9 58.0
14:40:00 67.5 74.4 57.1
14:41:00 68.8 75.2 60.1
14:42:00 66.3 74.0 58.3
14:43:00 66.6 75.8 55.2
14:44:00 68.7 77.3 59.1
14:45:00 67.1 73.4 59.1
14:46:00 70.0 83.0 55.9
14:47:00 68.6 75.0 54.8
14:48:00 67.9 75.5 59.8
14:49:00 67.9 77.2 57.7
14:50:00 69.4 74.9 73.1
15-minute LAeq 69.2
464
Monitoring Location: Site 6
Monitoring Date: 9/10/2021
Monitoring Period
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
13:24:07 55.8 59.9 52.5
13:25:07 56.0 61.2 51.2
13:26:07 57.8 61.9 53.8
13:27:07 61.6 70.0 54.7
13:28:07 58.8 62.5 53.1
13:29:07 60.6 66.6 55.6
13:30:07 62.9 66.7 60.8
13:31:07 57.2 64.7 53.8
13:32:07 56.5 60.3 53.4
13:33:07 56.8 63.6 54.4
13:34:07 56.4 60.6 54.2
13:35:07 61.5 63.7 55.2
13:36:07 60.9 67.6 54.5
13:37:07 55.6 58.4 52.6
13:38:07 57.6 61.3 52.6
13:39:07 62.1 62.7 61.2
15-minute LAeq 59.3
465
Monitoring Location: Site 7
Monitoring Date: 9/10/2021
Monitoring Period
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
13:42:36 68.5 75.8 58.0
13:43:36 66.3 73.3 57.2
13:44:36 67.2 75.0 57.3
13:45:36 71.1 80.0 57.4
13:46:36 77.3 93.2 57.9
13:47:36 73.8 77.7 62.7
13:48:36 71.2 74.9 66.5
13:49:36 73.0 75.5 67.3
13:50:36 70.7 75.4 62.7
13:51:36 77.4 83.6 65.4
13:52:36 68.6 77.0 57.7
13:53:36 66.2 73.1 58.6
13:54:36 68.2 75.2 59.7
13:55:36 65.3 72.7 58.7
13:56:36 65.7 73.1 58.6
13:57:36 64.1 71.4 55.8
15-minute LAeq 71.7
466
467
Project Name: Santa Susana Mixed-Use Redevelopment rev. (Date) If Peak Hour = 6% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 16.667 Weekday AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes If Peak Hour = 7% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 14.286 If Peak Hour = 8% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 12.5
Intersection: 1 If Peak Hour = 9% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 11.111 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 WB Ramps If Peak Hour = 10% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 10 ADT
Road
Southbound Leg North of South of East of West of
right through left Cross Street
Existing (AM) 14 1,041 Existing (AM) 15,536.0 21,520.0 10,024.0 1,768.0 Existing (PM) 19 910 Existing (PM) 17,392.0 23,816.0 11,944.0 3,984.0 Existing plus Pro 14 1,043 Existing plus Proj 15,624.0 21,704.0 10,120.0 1,768.0 Existing plus Pro 19 910 Existing plus Proj 17,392.0 23,816.0 11,944.0 3,984.0 Future (AM) 602 857 Future (AM) 19,672.0 22,672.0 12,800.0 7,048.0 Future (PM) 14 602 Future (PM) 15,416.0 20,648.0 10,720.0 3,168.0 Eastbound Future plus Proje 602 859 Westbound Future plus Proje 19,760.0 22,856.0 12,896.0 7,048.0 left through right Future plus Proje 14 733 right through left Future plus Proje 16,464.0 21,696.0 10,720.0 3,168.0 Existing (AM) 7 96 Existing (AM) 295 47 588
Existing (PM) 27 217 Existing (PM) 457 91 620
Existing plus Pro 7 96 N Existing plus Pro 295 47 588
Existing plus Pro 27 217 W E Existing plus Pro 457 91 620 Future (AM) 20 119 S Future (AM) 378 53 672
Future (PM) 22 181 Future (PM) 410 95 474
Future plus Proje 20 119 Future plus Proje 378 53 672
Future plus Proje 22 181 Northbound Future plus Proje 410 95 474 left through right
Existing (AM) 57 585 323
Existing (PM) 144 761 325
Existing plus Pro 57 594 335
Existing plus Pro 144 761 325
Future (AM) 87 602 497
Future (PM) 84 879 361
Future plus Proje 87 611 509
Future plus Proje 84 879 361
Tapo Canyon Road Tapo Canyon Road SR-118 WB Ramps
SR-118 WB Ramps Tapo Canyon Road SR-118 WB Ramps
468
2 NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Existing Plus Project Weekday Off-Site ADT Volumes Traffic Volumes Ref. Energy Levels Dist Ld Le Ln
Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix
ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) Day Eve Night MTd HTd MTe HTe MTn HTn A MT HT Adj A MT HT Total A MT HT Total A MT HT Total Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume (mph) ReceptorFactor (1) dB(A) Trucks Trucks CNEL Tapo Canyon Road n/o SRExisting (AM) 4 15 15,536 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.0 #### #### #### 244 97 14 3 21 9 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.4 56.5 57.3 65.7 61.4 48.9 47.2 61.8 48.2 47.1 48.1 52.6 Existing (PM) 4 15 17,392 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.5 #### #### #### 274 108 16 3 24 10 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.9 57.0 57.8 66.2 61.9 49.4 47.7 62.3 48.7 47.5 48.6 53.1 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 15,624 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.0 #### #### #### 246 97 14 3 21 9 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.4 56.5 57.4 65.7 61.4 48.9 47.2 61.8 48.2 47.1 48.1 52.6 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 17,392 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.5 #### #### #### 274 108 16 3 24 10 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.9 57.0 57.8 66.2 61.9 49.4 47.7 62.3 48.7 47.5 48.6 53.1 Future (AM) 4 15 19,672 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.0 #### #### #### 310 123 18 4 27 11 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.4 57.5 58.4 66.7 62.4 49.9 48.2 62.8 49.2 48.1 49.1 53.6 Future (PM) 4 15 15,416 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.9 #### #### #### 243 96 14 3 21 9 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.3 56.5 57.3 65.7 61.4 48.9 47.1 61.7 48.2 47.0 48.1 52.5 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 19,760 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.0 #### #### #### 311 123 18 4 27 11 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.4 57.6 58.4 66.8 62.4 50.0 48.2 62.8 49.2 48.1 49.1 53.6 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 16,464 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.2 #### #### #### 259 103 15 3 22 9 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.6 56.8 57.6 66.0 61.6 49.2 47.4 62.0 48.4 47.3 48.4 52.8 Tapo Canyon Road s/o SRExisting (AM) 4 15 21,520 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.4 #### #### #### 339 134 20 4 29 12 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.8 57.9 58.7 67.1 62.8 50.3 48.6 63.2 49.6 48.5 49.5 54.0 Existing (PM) 4 15 23,816 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.8 #### #### #### 375 149 22 5 32 13 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 66.2 58.4 59.2 67.6 63.2 50.8 49.0 63.6 50.0 48.9 50.0 54.4 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 21,704 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.4 #### #### #### 342 135 20 4 29 12 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.8 58.0 58.8 67.2 62.8 50.4 48.6 63.2 49.6 48.5 49.6 54.0 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 23,816 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.8 #### #### #### 375 149 22 5 32 13 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 66.2 58.4 59.2 67.6 63.2 50.8 49.0 63.6 50.0 48.9 50.0 54.4 Future (AM) 4 15 22,672 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.6 #### #### #### 357 141 21 5 31 13 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 66.0 58.1 59.0 67.3 63.0 50.6 48.8 63.4 49.8 48.7 49.7 54.2 Future (PM) 4 15 20,648 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.2 #### #### #### 325 129 19 4 28 12 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.6 57.7 58.6 66.9 62.6 50.2 48.4 63.0 49.4 48.3 49.3 53.8 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 22,856 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.6 #### #### #### 360 143 21 5 31 13 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 66.0 58.2 59.0 67.4 63.1 50.6 48.8 63.5 49.9 48.7 49.8 54.3 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 21,696 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.4 #### #### #### 341 135 20 4 29 12 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.8 58.0 58.8 67.2 62.8 50.4 48.6 63.2 49.6 48.5 49.5 54.0 SR-118 WB Ramps e/o Tapo
Existing (AM) 4 0 10,024 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.9 #### #### 962 158 63 9 2 14 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 62.3 54.5 55.3 63.7 59.3 46.9 45.1 59.7 46.1 45.0 46.1 50.5 Existing (PM) 4 0 11,944 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.7 #### #### #### 188 74 11 2 16 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 63.1 55.2 56.1 64.4 60.1 47.6 45.9 60.5 46.9 45.8 46.8 51.3 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 0 10,120 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.0 #### #### 972 159 63 9 2 14 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 62.4 54.5 55.3 63.7 59.4 46.9 45.2 59.8 46.2 45.1 46.1 50.6 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 0 11,944 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.7 #### #### #### 188 74 11 2 16 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 63.1 55.2 56.1 64.4 60.1 47.6 45.9 60.5 46.9 45.8 46.8 51.3 Future (AM) 4 0 12,800 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.0 #### #### #### 201 80 12 3 17 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 63.4 55.5 56.4 64.7 60.4 47.9 46.2 60.8 47.2 46.1 47.1 51.6 Future (PM) 4 0 10,720 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.2 #### #### #### 169 67 10 2 15 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 62.6 54.8 55.6 64.0 59.6 47.2 45.4 60.0 46.4 45.3 46.3 50.8 Future plus Project (AM) 4 0 12,896 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.0 #### #### #### 203 80 12 3 17 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 63.4 55.6 56.4 64.8 60.4 48.0 46.2 60.8 47.2 46.1 47.2 51.6 Future plus Project (PM) 4 0 10,720 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.2 #### #### #### 169 67 10 2 15 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 62.6 54.8 55.6 64.0 59.6 47.2 45.4 60.0 46.4 45.3 46.3 50.8 SR-118 WB Ramps w/o Tapo
Existing (AM) 4 0 1,768 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 55.4 #### 225 170 28 11 2 0 2 1 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 54.8 46.9 47.8 56.1 51.8 39.3 37.6 52.2 38.6 37.5 38.5 43.0 Existing (PM) 4 0 3,984 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 58.9 #### 506 382 63 25 4 1 5 2 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 58.3 50.5 51.3 59.7 55.3 42.9 41.1 55.7 42.1 41.0 42.1 46.5 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 0 1,768 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 55.4 #### 225 170 28 11 2 0 2 1 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 54.8 46.9 47.8 56.1 51.8 39.3 37.6 52.2 38.6 37.5 38.5 43.0 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 0 3,984 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 58.9 #### 506 382 63 25 4 1 5 2 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 58.3 50.5 51.3 59.7 55.3 42.9 41.1 55.7 42.1 41.0 42.1 46.5 Future (AM) 4 0 7,048 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.4 #### 895 677 111 44 6 1 10 4 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 60.8 52.9 53.8 62.1 57.8 45.4 43.6 58.2 44.6 43.5 44.5 49.0 Future (PM) 4 0 3,168 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 57.9 #### 402 304 50 20 3 1 4 2 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 57.3 49.5 50.3 58.7 54.3 41.9 40.1 54.7 41.1 40.0 41.1 45.5 Future plus Project (AM) 4 0 7,048 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.4 #### 895 677 111 44 6 1 10 4 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 60.8 52.9 53.8 62.1 57.8 45.4 43.6 58.2 44.6 43.5 44.5 49.0 Future plus Project (PM) 4 0 3,168 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 57.9 #### 402 304 50 20 3 1 4 2 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 57.3 49.5 50.3 58.7 54.3 41.9 40.1 54.7 41.1 40.0 41.1 45.5 Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%
(1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover.
469
Project Name: Santa Susana Mixed-Use Redevelopment rev. (Date) If Peak Hour = 6% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 16.667 Weekday AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes If Peak Hour = 7% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 14.286 If Peak Hour = 8% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 12.5
Intersection: 2 If Peak Hour = 9% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 11.111 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 EB Ramps If Peak Hour = 10% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 10 ADT
Road
Southbound Leg North of South of East of West of
right through left Cross Street
Existing (AM) 385 868 7 Existing (AM) 22,488.0 19,176.0 728.0 8,360.0 Existing (PM) 304 985 8 Existing (PM) 24,344.0 20,672.0 624.0 7,752.0 Existing plus Pro 385 870 7 Existing plus Proj 22,672.0 19,376.0 728.0 8,376.0 Existing plus Pro 304 985 8 Existing plus Proj 24,344.0 20,672.0 624.0 7,752.0 Future (AM) 590 963 8 Future (AM) 25,800.0 21,312.0 456.0 10,400.0 Future (PM) 574 1,165 4 Future (PM) 32,920.0 27,688.0 672.0 13,120.0 Eastbound Future plus Proje 590 965 8 Westbound Future plus Proje 25,984.0 21,512.0 456.0 10,416.0 left through right Future plus Proje 574 1,165 4 right through left Future plus Proje 32,920.0 27,688.0 672.0 13,120.0 Existing (AM) 334 4 322 Existing (AM) 45
Existing (PM) 399 2 264 Existing (PM) 40
Existing plus Pro 334 4 324 N Existing plus Pro 45
Existing plus Pro 399 2 264 W E Existing plus Pro 40
Future (AM) 345 7 358 S Future (AM) 9
Future (PM) 573 4 489 Future (PM) 34
Future plus Proje 345 7 360 Future plus Proje 9
Future plus Proje 573 4 489 Northbound Future plus Proje 34 left through right
Existing (AM) 1,172 35
Existing (PM) 1,307 28
Existing plus Project (AM 1,193 35
Existing plus Project (PM 1,307 28
Future (AM) 1310 33
Future (PM) 1765 42
Future plus Project (AM) 1331 33
Future plus Project (PM) 1765 42
Tapo Canyon Road Tapo Canyon Road SR-118 EB Ramps
SR-118 EB Ramps Tapo Canyon Road SR-118 EB Ramps
470
2 NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Existing Plus Project Weekday Off-Site ADT Volumes Traffic Volumes Ref. Energy Levels Dist Ld Le Ln
Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix
ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) Day Eve Night MTd HTd MTe HTe MTn HTn A MT HT Adj A MT HT Total A MT HT Total A MT HT Total Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume (mph) ReceptorFactor (1) dB(A) Trucks Trucks CNEL Tapo Canyon Road n/o SRExisting (AM) 4 15 22,488 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.6 #### #### #### 354 140 20 4 30 13 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 66.0 58.1 58.9 67.3 63.0 50.5 48.8 63.4 49.8 48.7 49.7 54.2 Existing (PM) 4 15 24,344 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.9 #### #### #### 383 152 22 5 33 14 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 66.3 58.5 59.3 67.7 63.3 50.9 49.1 63.7 50.1 49.0 50.0 54.5 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 22,672 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.6 #### #### #### 357 141 21 5 31 13 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 66.0 58.1 59.0 67.3 63.0 50.6 48.8 63.4 49.8 48.7 49.7 54.2 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 24,344 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.9 #### #### #### 383 152 22 5 33 14 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 66.3 58.5 59.3 67.7 63.3 50.9 49.1 63.7 50.1 49.0 50.0 54.5 Future (AM) 4 15 25,800 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.2 #### #### #### 406 161 23 5 35 15 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 66.6 58.7 59.5 67.9 63.6 51.1 49.4 64.0 50.4 49.3 50.3 54.8 Future (PM) 4 15 32,920 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.2 #### #### #### 518 205 30 7 45 19 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 67.6 59.8 60.6 69.0 64.6 52.2 50.4 65.0 51.5 50.3 51.4 55.8 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 25,984 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.2 #### #### #### 409 162 24 5 35 15 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 66.6 58.7 59.6 67.9 63.6 51.2 49.4 64.0 50.4 49.3 50.3 54.8 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 32,920 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.2 #### #### #### 518 205 30 7 45 19 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 67.6 59.8 60.6 69.0 64.6 52.2 50.4 65.0 51.5 50.3 51.4 55.8 Tapo Canyon Road s/o SRExisting (AM) 4 15 19,176 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.9 #### #### #### 302 120 17 4 26 11 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.3 57.4 58.2 66.6 62.3 49.8 48.1 62.7 49.1 48.0 49.0 53.5 Existing (PM) 4 15 20,672 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.2 #### #### #### 325 129 19 4 28 12 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.6 57.7 58.6 66.9 62.6 50.2 48.4 63.0 49.4 48.3 49.3 53.8 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 19,376 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.9 #### #### #### 305 121 18 4 26 11 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.3 57.5 58.3 66.7 62.3 49.9 48.1 62.7 49.1 48.0 49.1 53.5 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 20,672 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.2 #### #### #### 325 129 19 4 28 12 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.6 57.7 58.6 66.9 62.6 50.2 48.4 63.0 49.4 48.3 49.3 53.8 Future (AM) 4 15 21,312 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.3 #### #### #### 335 133 19 4 29 12 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.7 57.9 58.7 67.1 62.8 50.3 48.5 63.2 49.6 48.4 49.5 54.0 Future (PM) 4 15 27,688 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.5 #### #### #### 436 173 25 6 37 16 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 66.9 59.0 59.8 68.2 63.9 51.4 49.7 64.3 50.7 49.6 50.6 55.1 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 21,512 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.4 #### #### #### 339 134 20 4 29 12 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.8 57.9 58.7 67.1 62.8 50.3 48.6 63.2 49.6 48.5 49.5 54.0 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 27,688 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.5 #### #### #### 436 173 25 6 37 16 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 66.9 59.0 59.8 68.2 63.9 51.4 49.7 64.3 50.7 49.6 50.6 55.1 SR-118 EB ramps e/o Tapo
Existing (AM) 4 0 728 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 51.5 566 92 70 11 5 1 0 1 0 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 50.9 43.1 43.9 52.3 48.0 35.5 33.7 48.3 34.8 33.6 34.7 39.2 Existing (PM) 4 0 624 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 50.9 485 79 60 10 4 1 0 1 0 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 50.3 42.4 43.2 51.6 47.3 34.8 33.1 47.7 34.1 33.0 34.0 38.5 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 0 728 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 51.5 566 92 70 11 5 1 0 1 0 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 50.9 43.1 43.9 52.3 48.0 35.5 33.7 48.3 34.8 33.6 34.7 39.2 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 0 624 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 50.9 485 79 60 10 4 1 0 1 0 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 50.3 42.4 43.2 51.6 47.3 34.8 33.1 47.7 34.1 33.0 34.0 38.5 Future (AM) 4 0 456 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 49.5 354 58 44 7 3 0 0 1 0 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 48.9 41.0 41.9 50.2 45.9 33.5 31.7 46.3 32.7 31.6 32.6 37.1 Future (PM) 4 0 672 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 51.2 522 85 65 11 4 1 0 1 0 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 50.6 42.7 43.6 51.9 47.6 35.1 33.4 48.0 34.4 33.3 34.3 38.8 Future plus Project (AM) 4 0 456 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 49.5 354 58 44 7 3 0 0 1 0 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 48.9 41.0 41.9 50.2 45.9 33.5 31.7 46.3 32.7 31.6 32.6 37.1 Future plus Project (PM) 4 0 672 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 51.2 522 85 65 11 4 1 0 1 0 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 50.6 42.7 43.6 51.9 47.6 35.1 33.4 48.0 34.4 33.3 34.3 38.8 SR-118 EB ramps w/o Tapo
Existing (AM) 4 0 8,360 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.1 #### #### 803 132 52 8 2 11 5 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 61.5 53.7 54.5 62.9 58.6 46.1 44.3 58.9 45.4 44.2 45.3 49.8 Existing (PM) 4 0 7,752 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.8 #### 985 744 122 48 7 2 10 4 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 61.2 53.4 54.2 62.5 58.2 45.8 44.0 58.6 45.0 43.9 44.9 49.4 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 0 8,376 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.1 #### #### 804 132 52 8 2 11 5 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 61.5 53.7 54.5 62.9 58.6 46.1 44.3 59.0 45.4 44.2 45.3 49.8 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 0 7,752 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.8 #### 985 744 122 48 7 2 10 4 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 61.2 53.4 54.2 62.5 58.2 45.8 44.0 58.6 45.0 43.9 44.9 49.4 Future (AM) 4 0 10,400 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.1 #### #### 998 164 65 9 2 14 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 62.5 54.6 55.5 63.8 59.5 47.0 45.3 59.9 46.3 45.2 46.2 50.7 Future (PM) 4 0 13,120 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.1 #### #### #### 206 82 12 3 18 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 63.5 55.6 56.5 64.8 60.5 48.1 46.3 60.9 47.3 46.2 47.2 51.7 Future plus Project (AM) 4 0 10,416 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.1 #### #### #### 164 65 9 2 14 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 62.5 54.6 55.5 63.8 59.5 47.0 45.3 59.9 46.3 45.2 46.2 50.7 Future plus Project (PM) 4 0 13,120 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.1 #### #### #### 206 82 12 3 18 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 63.5 55.6 56.5 64.8 60.5 48.1 46.3 60.9 47.3 46.2 47.2 51.7 Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%
(1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover.
471
Project Name: Santa Susana Mixed-Use Redevelopment rev. (Date) If Peak Hour = 6% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 16.667 Weekday AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes If Peak Hour = 7% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 14.286 If Peak Hour = 8% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 12.5
Intersection: 3 If Peak Hour = 9% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 11.111 Tapo Canyon Road & Cochran Street If Peak Hour = 10% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 10 ADT
Road
Southbound Leg North of South of East of West of
right through left Cross Street
Existing (AM) 311 673 204 Existing (AM) 19,000.0 11,632.0 11,232.0 12,744.0 Existing (PM) 405 534 311 Existing (PM) 21,456.0 12,640.0 14,800.0 14,864.0 Existing plus Pro 311 673 208 Existing plus Proj 19,200.0 11,632.0 11,512.0 12,824.0 Existing plus Pro 405 534 311 Existing plus Proj 21,456.0 12,640.0 14,800.0 14,864.0 Future (AM) 318 998 239 Future (AM) 23,264.0 14,784.0 12,496.0 14,432.0 Future (PM) 558 722 517 Future (PM) 27,168.0 14,464.0 18,728.0 19,928.0 Eastbound Future plus Proje 318 998 243 Westbound Future plus Proje 23,464.0 14,784.0 12,776.0 14,512.0 left through right Future plus Proje 558 722 517 right through left Future plus Proje 27,168.0 14,464.0 18,728.0 19,928.0 Existing (AM) 400 376 74 Existing (AM) 286 382 96
Existing (PM) 346 579 46 Existing (PM) 355 409 98
Existing plus Pro 400 377 74 N Existing plus Pro 307 391 96 Existing plus Pro 346 579 46 W E Existing plus Pro 355 409 98 Future (AM) 491 500 86 S Future (AM) 313 352 57
Future (PM) 471 674 83 Future (PM) 391 599 99
Future plus Proje 491 501 86 Future plus Proje 334 361 57 Future plus Proje 471 674 83 Northbound Future plus Proje 391 599 99 left through right
Existing (AM) 50 501 60
Existing (PM) 73 731 98
Existing plus Pro 50 501 60
Existing plus Pro 73 731 98
Future (AM) 57 549 101
Future (PM) 106 737 61
Future plus Proje 57 549 101
Future plus Proje 106 737 61
Tapo Canyon Road Tapo Canyon Road Cochran Street
Cochran Street Tapo Canyon Road Cochran Street
472
2 NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Existing Plus Project Weekday Off-Site ADT Volumes Traffic Volumes Ref. Energy Levels Dist Ld Le Ln
Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix
ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) Day Eve Night MTd HTd MTe HTe MTn HTn A MT HT Adj A MT HT Total A MT HT Total A MT HT Total Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume (mph) ReceptorFactor (1) dB(A) Trucks Trucks CNEL Tapo Canyon Road n/o
Existing (AM) 4 15 19,000 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.8 #### #### #### 299 119 17 4 26 11 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.2 57.4 58.2 66.6 62.3 49.8 48.0 62.7 49.1 47.9 49.0 53.5 Existing (PM) 4 15 21,456 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.4 #### #### #### 338 134 20 4 29 12 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.8 57.9 58.7 67.1 62.8 50.3 48.6 63.2 49.6 48.5 49.5 54.0 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 19,200 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.9 #### #### #### 302 120 17 4 26 11 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.3 57.4 58.3 66.6 62.3 49.8 48.1 62.7 49.1 48.0 49.0 53.5 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 21,456 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.4 #### #### #### 338 134 20 4 29 12 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.8 57.9 58.7 67.1 62.8 50.3 48.6 63.2 49.6 48.5 49.5 54.0 Future (AM) 4 15 23,264 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.7 #### #### #### 366 145 21 5 31 13 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 66.1 58.3 59.1 67.5 63.1 50.7 48.9 63.5 49.9 48.8 49.9 54.3 Future (PM) 4 15 27,168 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.4 #### #### #### 428 169 25 5 37 15 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 66.8 58.9 59.8 68.1 63.8 51.4 49.6 64.2 50.6 49.5 50.5 55.0 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 23,464 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.8 #### #### #### 369 146 21 5 32 13 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 66.2 58.3 59.1 67.5 63.2 50.7 49.0 63.6 50.0 48.8 49.9 54.4 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 27,168 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.4 #### #### #### 428 169 25 5 37 15 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 66.8 58.9 59.8 68.1 63.8 51.4 49.6 64.2 50.6 49.5 50.5 55.0 Tapo Canyon Road s/o
Existing (AM) 4 15 11,632 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.7 #### #### #### 183 73 11 2 16 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.1 55.3 56.1 64.4 60.1 47.7 45.9 60.5 46.9 45.8 46.8 51.3 Existing (PM) 4 15 12,640 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.1 #### #### #### 199 79 11 3 17 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.5 55.6 56.4 64.8 60.5 48.0 46.3 60.9 47.3 46.2 47.2 51.7 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 11,632 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.7 #### #### #### 183 73 11 2 16 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.1 55.3 56.1 64.4 60.1 47.7 45.9 60.5 46.9 45.8 46.8 51.3 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 12,640 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.1 #### #### #### 199 79 11 3 17 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.5 55.6 56.4 64.8 60.5 48.0 46.3 60.9 47.3 46.2 47.2 51.7 Future (AM) 4 15 14,784 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.7 #### #### #### 233 92 13 3 20 8 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.1 56.3 57.1 65.5 61.2 48.7 47.0 61.6 48.0 46.8 47.9 52.4 Future (PM) 4 15 14,464 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.7 #### #### #### 228 90 13 3 20 8 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.1 56.2 57.0 65.4 61.1 48.6 46.9 61.5 47.9 46.7 47.8 52.3 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 14,784 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.7 #### #### #### 233 92 13 3 20 8 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.1 56.3 57.1 65.5 61.2 48.7 47.0 61.6 48.0 46.8 47.9 52.4 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 14,464 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.7 #### #### #### 228 90 13 3 20 8 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.1 56.2 57.0 65.4 61.1 48.6 46.9 61.5 47.9 46.7 47.8 52.3 Cochran Street e/o Tapo
Existing (AM) 4 15 11,232 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.6 #### #### #### 177 70 10 2 15 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.0 55.1 55.9 64.3 60.0 47.5 45.8 60.4 46.8 45.6 46.7 51.2 Existing (PM) 4 15 14,800 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.8 #### #### #### 233 92 13 3 20 8 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.2 56.3 57.1 65.5 61.2 48.7 47.0 61.6 48.0 46.8 47.9 52.4 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 11,512 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.7 #### #### #### 181 72 10 2 16 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.1 55.2 56.0 64.4 60.1 47.6 45.9 60.5 46.9 45.8 46.8 51.3 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 14,800 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.8 #### #### #### 233 92 13 3 20 8 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.2 56.3 57.1 65.5 61.2 48.7 47.0 61.6 48.0 46.8 47.9 52.4 Future (AM) 4 15 12,496 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.0 #### #### #### 197 78 11 2 17 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.4 55.6 56.4 64.8 60.4 48.0 46.2 60.8 47.2 46.1 47.2 51.6 Future (PM) 4 15 18,728 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.8 #### #### #### 295 117 17 4 25 11 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.2 57.3 58.1 66.5 62.2 49.7 48.0 62.6 49.0 47.9 48.9 53.4 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 12,776 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.1 #### #### #### 201 80 12 3 17 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.5 55.7 56.5 64.9 60.5 48.1 46.3 60.9 47.3 46.2 47.2 51.7 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 18,728 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.8 #### #### #### 295 117 17 4 25 11 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.2 57.3 58.1 66.5 62.2 49.7 48.0 62.6 49.0 47.9 48.9 53.4 Cochran Street w/o Tapo
Existing (AM) 4 15 12,744 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.1 #### #### #### 201 79 12 3 17 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.5 55.6 56.5 64.8 60.5 48.1 46.3 60.9 47.3 46.2 47.2 51.7 Existing (PM) 4 15 14,864 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.8 #### #### #### 234 93 14 3 20 8 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.2 56.3 57.1 65.5 61.2 48.7 47.0 61.6 48.0 46.9 47.9 52.4 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 12,824 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.1 #### #### #### 202 80 12 3 17 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.5 55.7 56.5 64.9 60.6 48.1 46.3 60.9 47.4 46.2 47.3 51.7 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 14,864 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.8 #### #### #### 234 93 14 3 20 8 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.2 56.3 57.1 65.5 61.2 48.7 47.0 61.6 48.0 46.9 47.9 52.4 Future (AM) 4 15 14,432 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.6 #### #### #### 227 90 13 3 20 8 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.0 56.2 57.0 65.4 61.1 48.6 46.8 61.5 47.9 46.7 47.8 52.3 Future (PM) 4 15 19,928 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.0 #### #### #### 314 124 18 4 27 11 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.4 57.6 58.4 66.8 62.5 50.0 48.3 62.9 49.3 48.1 49.2 53.7 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 14,512 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.7 #### #### #### 228 91 13 3 20 8 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.1 56.2 57.0 65.4 61.1 48.6 46.9 61.5 47.9 46.8 47.8 52.3 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 19,928 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.0 #### #### #### 314 124 18 4 27 11 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 65.4 57.6 58.4 66.8 62.5 50.0 48.3 62.9 49.3 48.1 49.2 53.7 Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%
(1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover.
473
Project Name: Santa Susana Mixed-Use Redevelopment rev. (Date) If Peak Hour = 6% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 16.667 Weekday AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes If Peak Hour = 7% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 14.286 If Peak Hour = 8% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 12.5
Intersection: 4 If Peak Hour = 9% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 11.111 Tapo Street & Alamo Street If Peak Hour = 10% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 10 ADT
Road
Southbound Leg North of South of East of West of
right through left Cross Street
Existing (AM) 290 359 212 Existing (AM) 11,672.0 8,104.0 9,280.0 10,304.0 Existing (PM) 127 169 75 Existing (PM) 6,760.0 7,080.0 8,496.0 11,312.0 Existing plus Pro 290 360 212 Existing plus Proj 11,728.0 8,160.0 9,280.0 10,304.0 Existing plus Pro 127 169 75 Existing plus Proj 6,760.0 7,080.0 8,496.0 11,312.0 Future (AM) 325 496 313 Future (AM) 14,672.0 10,120.0 11,488.0 12,120.0 Future (PM) 114 201 72 Future (PM) 7,496.0 8,992.0 11,176.0 13,376.0 Eastbound Future plus Proje 325 497 313 Westbound Future plus Proje 14,728.0 10,176.0 11,480.0 12,112.0 left through right Future plus Proje 114 201 72 right through left Future plus Proje 7,496.0 8,992.0 11,176.0 13,376.0 Existing (AM) 115 238 122 Existing (AM) 185 407 76
Existing (PM) 168 457 178 Existing (PM) 86 305 54
Existing plus Pro 115 238 122 N Existing plus Pro 185 407 76 Existing plus Pro 168 457 178 W E Existing plus Pro 86 305 54 Future (AM) 109 315 186 S Future (AM) 239 459 67
Future (PM) 162 633 209 Future (PM) 97 363 112
Future plus Proje 109 314 186 Future plus Proje 239 459 67 Future plus Proje 162 633 209 Northbound Future plus Proje 97 363 112 left through right
Existing (AM) 116 298 42
Existing (PM) 179 220 85
Existing plus Pro 116 304 42
Existing plus Pro 179 220 85
Future (AM) 121 352 43
Future (PM) 191 291 120
Future plus Proje 121 358 43
Future plus Proje 191 291 120
Tapo Street Tapo Street Alamo Street
Alamo Street Tapo Street Alamo Street
474
2 NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Existing Plus Project Weekday Off-Site ADT Volumes Traffic Volumes Ref. Energy Levels Dist Ld Le Ln
Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix
ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) Day Eve Night MTd HTd MTe HTe MTn HTn A MT HT Adj A MT HT Total A MT HT Total A MT HT Total Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume (mph) ReceptorFactor (1) dB(A) Trucks Trucks CNEL Tapo Street n/o Alamo Street
Existing (AM) 4 0 11,672 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.8 #### #### #### 184 73 11 2 16 7 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.7 64.5 55.9 56.4 65.6 61.5 48.3 46.3 61.8 48.3 46.5 47.2 52.2 Existing (PM) 4 0 6,760 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.4 #### 859 649 106 42 6 1 9 4 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.7 62.1 53.6 54.1 63.2 59.1 46.0 43.9 59.4 45.9 44.1 44.8 49.8 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 0 11,728 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.8 #### #### #### 185 73 11 2 16 7 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.7 64.5 55.9 56.4 65.6 61.5 48.4 46.3 61.8 48.3 46.5 47.2 52.2 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 0 6,760 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.4 #### 859 649 106 42 6 1 9 4 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.7 62.1 53.6 54.1 63.2 59.1 46.0 43.9 59.4 45.9 44.1 44.8 49.8 Future (AM) 4 0 14,672 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.8 #### #### #### 231 92 13 3 20 8 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.7 65.5 56.9 57.4 66.6 62.5 49.3 47.3 62.8 49.3 47.5 48.2 53.1 Future (PM) 4 0 7,496 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.9 #### 952 720 118 47 7 1 10 4 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.7 62.5 54.0 54.5 63.7 59.6 46.4 44.3 59.9 46.4 44.5 45.3 50.2 Future plus Project (AM) 4 0 14,728 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.8 #### #### #### 232 92 13 3 20 8 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.7 65.5 56.9 57.4 66.6 62.5 49.4 47.3 62.8 49.3 47.5 48.2 53.2 Future plus Project (PM) 4 0 7,496 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.9 #### 952 720 118 47 7 1 10 4 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.7 62.5 54.0 54.5 63.7 59.6 46.4 44.3 59.9 46.4 44.5 45.3 50.2 Tapo Street s/o Alamo Street
Existing (AM) 4 15 8,104 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.4 #### #### 778 128 51 7 2 11 5 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 63.0 54.5 55.0 64.1 60.0 46.9 44.8 60.4 46.8 45.0 45.7 50.7 Existing (PM) 4 15 7,080 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.8 #### 899 680 111 44 6 1 10 4 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 62.4 53.9 54.4 63.6 59.4 46.3 44.2 59.8 46.3 44.4 45.2 50.1 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 8,160 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.4 #### #### 783 128 51 7 2 11 5 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 63.0 54.5 55.0 64.2 60.1 46.9 44.8 60.4 46.9 45.1 45.8 50.7 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 7,080 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.8 #### 899 680 111 44 6 1 10 4 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 62.4 53.9 54.4 63.6 59.4 46.3 44.2 59.8 46.3 44.4 45.2 50.1 Future (AM) 4 15 10,120 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.3 #### #### 972 159 63 9 2 14 6 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 64.0 55.4 55.9 65.1 61.0 47.9 45.8 61.3 47.8 46.0 46.7 51.7 Future (PM) 4 15 8,992 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.8 #### #### 863 142 56 8 2 12 5 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 63.5 54.9 55.4 64.6 60.5 47.3 45.3 60.8 47.3 45.5 46.2 51.2 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 10,176 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.4 #### #### 977 160 63 9 2 14 6 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 64.0 55.5 56.0 65.1 61.0 47.9 45.8 61.3 47.8 46.0 46.7 51.7 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 8,992 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.8 #### #### 863 142 56 8 2 12 5 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 63.5 54.9 55.4 64.6 60.5 47.3 45.3 60.8 47.3 45.5 46.2 51.2 Alamo Street e/o Tapo Street
Existing (AM) 4 15 9,280 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.7 #### #### 891 146 58 8 2 13 5 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.1 54.3 55.1 63.5 59.1 46.7 44.9 59.5 46.0 44.8 45.9 50.3 Existing (PM) 4 15 8,496 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.3 #### #### 816 134 53 8 2 12 5 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 61.7 53.9 54.7 63.1 58.8 46.3 44.5 59.2 45.6 44.4 45.5 50.0 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 9,280 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.7 #### #### 891 146 58 8 2 13 5 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.1 54.3 55.1 63.5 59.1 46.7 44.9 59.5 46.0 44.8 45.9 50.3 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 8,496 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.3 #### #### 816 134 53 8 2 12 5 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 61.7 53.9 54.7 63.1 58.8 46.3 44.5 59.2 45.6 44.4 45.5 50.0 Future (AM) 4 15 11,488 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.7 #### #### #### 181 72 10 2 16 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.1 55.2 56.0 64.4 60.1 47.6 45.9 60.5 46.9 45.7 46.8 51.3 Future (PM) 4 15 11,176 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.5 #### #### #### 176 70 10 2 15 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.9 55.1 55.9 64.3 60.0 47.5 45.7 60.3 46.8 45.6 46.7 51.2 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 11,480 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.6 #### #### #### 181 72 10 2 16 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.1 55.2 56.0 64.4 60.1 47.6 45.9 60.5 46.9 45.7 46.8 51.3 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 11,176 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.5 #### #### #### 176 70 10 2 15 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.9 55.1 55.9 64.3 60.0 47.5 45.7 60.3 46.8 45.6 46.7 51.2 Alamo Street w/o Tapo Street
Existing (AM) 4 15 10,304 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.2 #### #### 989 162 64 9 2 14 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.6 54.7 55.6 63.9 59.6 47.1 45.4 60.0 46.4 45.3 46.3 50.8 Existing (PM) 4 15 11,312 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.6 #### #### #### 178 71 10 2 15 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.0 55.1 56.0 64.3 60.0 47.5 45.8 60.4 46.8 45.7 46.7 51.2 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 10,304 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.2 #### #### 989 162 64 9 2 14 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.6 54.7 55.6 63.9 59.6 47.1 45.4 60.0 46.4 45.3 46.3 50.8 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 11,312 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.6 #### #### #### 178 71 10 2 15 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.0 55.1 56.0 64.3 60.0 47.5 45.8 60.4 46.8 45.7 46.7 51.2 Future (AM) 4 15 12,120 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.9 #### #### #### 191 76 11 2 16 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.3 55.4 56.3 64.6 60.3 47.8 46.1 60.7 47.1 46.0 47.0 51.5 Future (PM) 4 15 13,376 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.3 #### #### #### 211 83 12 3 18 8 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.7 55.9 56.7 65.1 60.7 48.3 46.5 61.1 47.5 46.4 47.4 51.9 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 12,112 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.9 #### #### #### 191 76 11 2 16 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.3 55.4 56.3 64.6 60.3 47.8 46.1 60.7 47.1 46.0 47.0 51.5 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 13,376 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.3 #### #### #### 211 83 12 3 18 8 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.7 55.9 56.7 65.1 60.7 48.3 46.5 61.1 47.5 46.4 47.4 51.9 Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%
(1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover.
475
Project Name: Santa Susana Mixed-Use Redevelopment rev. (Date) If Peak Hour = 6% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 16.667 Weekday AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes If Peak Hour = 7% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 14.286 If Peak Hour = 8% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 12.5
Intersection: 5 If Peak Hour = 9% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 11.111 Tapo Street & Cochran Street If Peak Hour = 10% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 10 ADT
Road
Southbound Leg North of South of East of West of
right through left Cross Street
Existing (AM) 193 361 152 Existing (AM) 10,272.0 8,344.0 9,352.0 9,792.0 Existing (PM) 115 305 90 Existing (PM) 8,648.0 10,720.0 9,848.0 11,536.0 Existing plus Pro 193 362 152 Existing plus Proj 10,048.0 8,680.0 9,352.0 9,792.0 Existing plus Pro 115 305 90 Existing plus Proj 8,928.0 10,720.0 9,848.0 11,816.0 Future (AM) 230 463 235 Future (AM) 12,336.0 9,832.0 11,352.0 11,296.0 Future (PM) 124 323 129 Future (PM) 10,312.0 13,224.0 12,432.0 12,768.0 Eastbound Future plus Proje 230 464 235 Westbound Future plus Proje 12,392.0 10,168.0 11,352.0 11,576.0 left through right Future plus Proje 124 323 129 right through left Future plus Proje 10,312.0 13,224.0 12,432.0 12,768.0 Existing (AM) 170 337 112 Existing (AM) 129 336 133
Existing (PM) 135 471 184 Existing (PM) 76 320 119
Existing plus Pro 135 337 117 N Existing plus Pro 129 336 133 Existing plus Pro 170 471 184 W E Existing plus Pro 76 320 119 Future (AM) 213 412 107 S Future (AM) 124 358 187
Future (PM) 153 527 166 Future (PM) 96 364 182
Future plus Proje 213 412 112 Future plus Proje 124 358 187 Future plus Proje 153 527 166 Northbound Future plus Proje 96 364 182 left through right
Existing (AM) 76 279 82
Existing (PM) 217 360 155
Existing plus Pro 106 285 82
Existing plus Pro 217 360 155
Future (AM) 92 277 103
Future (PM) 262 464 256
Future plus Proje 122 283 103
Future plus Proje 262 464 256
Tapo Street Tapo Street Cochran Street
Cochran Street Tapo Street Cochran Street
476
2 NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Existing Plus Project Weekday Off-Site ADT Volumes Traffic Volumes Ref. Energy Levels Dist Ld Le Ln
Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix
ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) Day Eve Night MTd HTd MTe HTe MTn HTn A MT HT Adj A MT HT Total A MT HT Total A MT HT Total Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume (mph) ReceptorFactor (1) dB(A) Trucks Trucks CNEL Tapo Street n/o Cochran
Existing (AM) 4 15 10,272 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.4 #### #### 986 162 64 9 2 14 6 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 64.0 55.5 56.0 65.2 61.1 47.9 45.8 61.4 47.9 46.1 46.8 51.7 Existing (PM) 4 15 8,648 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.6 #### #### 830 136 54 8 2 12 5 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 63.3 54.8 55.3 64.4 60.3 47.2 45.1 60.6 47.1 45.3 46.0 51.0 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 10,048 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.3 #### #### 965 158 63 9 2 14 6 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 63.9 55.4 55.9 65.1 61.0 47.8 45.7 61.3 47.8 46.0 46.7 51.6 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 8,928 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.8 #### #### 857 141 56 8 2 12 5 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 63.4 54.9 55.4 64.6 60.5 47.3 45.2 60.8 47.3 45.4 46.2 51.1 Future (AM) 4 15 12,336 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.2 #### #### #### 194 77 11 2 17 7 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 64.8 56.3 56.8 66.0 61.9 48.7 46.6 62.2 48.7 46.8 47.6 52.5 Future (PM) 4 15 10,312 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.4 #### #### 990 162 64 9 2 14 6 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 64.1 55.5 56.0 65.2 61.1 47.9 45.9 61.4 47.9 46.1 46.8 51.8 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 12,392 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.2 #### #### #### 195 77 11 2 17 7 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 64.9 56.3 56.8 66.0 61.9 48.7 46.7 62.2 48.7 46.9 47.6 52.5 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 10,312 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.4 #### #### 990 162 64 9 2 14 6 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 64.1 55.5 56.0 65.2 61.1 47.9 45.9 61.4 47.9 46.1 46.8 51.8 Tapo Street s/o Cochran
Existing (AM) 4 15 8,344 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.5 #### #### 801 131 52 8 2 11 5 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 63.1 54.6 55.1 64.3 60.2 47.0 44.9 60.5 47.0 45.2 45.9 50.8 Existing (PM) 4 15 10,720 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.6 #### #### #### 169 67 10 2 15 6 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 64.2 55.7 56.2 65.4 61.2 48.1 46.0 61.6 48.1 46.2 47.0 51.9 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 8,680 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.7 #### #### 833 137 54 8 2 12 5 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 63.3 54.8 55.3 64.4 60.3 47.2 45.1 60.7 47.1 45.3 46.0 51.0 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 10,720 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.6 #### #### #### 169 67 10 2 15 6 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 64.2 55.7 56.2 65.4 61.2 48.1 46.0 61.6 48.1 46.2 47.0 51.9 Future (AM) 4 15 9,832 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.2 #### #### 944 155 61 9 2 13 6 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 63.9 55.3 55.8 65.0 60.9 47.7 45.7 61.2 47.7 45.9 46.6 51.5 Future (PM) 4 15 13,224 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.5 #### #### #### 208 82 12 3 18 7 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 65.1 56.6 57.1 66.3 62.2 49.0 46.9 62.5 49.0 47.2 47.9 52.8 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 10,168 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.3 #### #### 976 160 63 9 2 14 6 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 64.0 55.5 56.0 65.1 61.0 47.9 45.8 61.3 47.8 46.0 46.7 51.7 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 13,224 45 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.5 #### #### #### 208 82 12 3 18 7 69.3 77.6 82.1 -1.6 65.1 56.6 57.1 66.3 62.2 49.0 46.9 62.5 49.0 47.2 47.9 52.8 Cochran Street e/o Tapo
Existing (AM) 4 15 9,352 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.8 #### #### 898 147 58 9 2 13 5 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.2 54.3 55.1 63.5 59.2 46.7 45.0 59.6 46.0 44.8 45.9 50.4 Existing (PM) 4 15 9,848 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.0 #### #### 945 155 61 9 2 13 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.4 54.5 55.4 63.7 59.4 46.9 45.2 59.8 46.2 45.1 46.1 50.6 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 9,352 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.8 #### #### 898 147 58 9 2 13 5 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.2 54.3 55.1 63.5 59.2 46.7 45.0 59.6 46.0 44.8 45.9 50.4 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 9,848 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.0 #### #### 945 155 61 9 2 13 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.4 54.5 55.4 63.7 59.4 46.9 45.2 59.8 46.2 45.1 46.1 50.6 Future (AM) 4 15 11,352 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.6 #### #### #### 179 71 10 2 15 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.0 55.1 56.0 64.3 60.0 47.6 45.8 60.4 46.8 45.7 46.7 51.2 Future (PM) 4 15 12,432 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.0 #### #### #### 196 78 11 2 17 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.4 55.5 56.4 64.7 60.4 48.0 46.2 60.8 47.2 46.1 47.1 51.6 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 11,352 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.6 #### #### #### 179 71 10 2 15 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.0 55.1 56.0 64.3 60.0 47.6 45.8 60.4 46.8 45.7 46.7 51.2 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 12,432 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.0 #### #### #### 196 78 11 2 17 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.4 55.5 56.4 64.7 60.4 48.0 46.2 60.8 47.2 46.1 47.1 51.6 Cochran Street w/o Tapo
Existing (AM) 4 15 9,792 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.0 #### #### 940 154 61 9 2 13 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.4 54.5 55.3 63.7 59.4 46.9 45.2 59.8 46.2 45.0 46.1 50.6 Existing (PM) 4 15 11,536 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.7 #### #### #### 182 72 10 2 16 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.1 55.2 56.0 64.4 60.1 47.6 45.9 60.5 46.9 45.8 46.8 51.3 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 9,792 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.0 #### #### 940 154 61 9 2 13 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.4 54.5 55.3 63.7 59.4 46.9 45.2 59.8 46.2 45.0 46.1 50.6 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 11,816 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.8 #### #### #### 186 74 11 2 16 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.2 55.3 56.1 64.5 60.2 47.7 46.0 60.6 47.0 45.9 46.9 51.4 Future (AM) 4 15 11,296 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.6 #### #### #### 178 70 10 2 15 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.0 55.1 56.0 64.3 60.0 47.5 45.8 60.4 46.8 45.7 46.7 51.2 Future (PM) 4 15 12,768 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.1 #### #### #### 201 80 12 3 17 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.5 55.7 56.5 64.9 60.5 48.1 46.3 60.9 47.3 46.2 47.2 51.7 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 11,576 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.7 #### #### #### 182 72 11 2 16 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.1 55.2 56.1 64.4 60.1 47.6 45.9 60.5 46.9 45.8 46.8 51.3 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 12,768 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.1 #### #### #### 201 80 12 3 17 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.5 55.7 56.5 64.9 60.5 48.1 46.3 60.9 47.3 46.2 47.2 51.7 Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%
(1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover.
477
Project Name: Santa Susana Mixed-Use Redevelopment rev. (Date) If Peak Hour = 6% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 16.667 Weekday AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes If Peak Hour = 7% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 14.286 If Peak Hour = 8% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 12.5
Intersection: 6 If Peak Hour = 9% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 11.111 Stearns Street & SR-118 WB ramps If Peak Hour = 10% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 10 ADT
Road
Southbound Leg North of South of East of West of
right through left Cross Street
Existing (AM) 6 533 Existing (AM) 7,880.0 11,616.0 7,504.0 1,672.0 Existing (PM) 12 343 Existing (PM) 7,696.0 10,704.0 8,160.0 1,728.0 Existing plus Pro 6 533 Existing plus Proj 7,880.0 11,632.0 7,520.0 1,672.0 Existing plus Pro 12 343 Existing plus Proj 7,696.0 10,704.0 8,160.0 1,728.0 Future (AM) 14 787 Future (AM) 10,120.0 14,272.0 7,832.0 1,104.0 Future (PM) 156 402 Future (PM) 10,632.0 14,096.0 10,128.0 3,320.0 Eastbound Future plus Proje 14 787 Westbound Future plus Proje 10,120.0 14,288.0 7,848.0 1,104.0 left through right Future plus Proje 156 402 right through left Future plus Proje 10,632.0 14,096.0 10,128.0 3,320.0 Existing (AM) 9 87 Existing (AM) 157 81 278
Existing (PM) 11 56 Existing (PM) 238 113 391
Existing plus Pro 9 87 N Existing plus Pro 157 81 280
Existing plus Pro 11 56 W E Existing plus Pro 238 113 391 Future (AM) 2 41 S Future (AM) 208 75 284
Future (PM) 6 79 Future (PM) 319 143 560
Future plus Proje 2 41 Future plus Proje 208 75 286
Future plus Proje 6 79 Northbound Future plus Proje 319 143 560 left through right
Existing (AM) 26 280 335
Existing (PM) 24 358 222
Existing plus Pro 26 280 335
Existing plus Pro 24 358 222
Future (AM) 6 254 412
Future (PM) 31 446 244
Future plus Proje 6 254 412
Future plus Proje 31 446 244
Stearns Street Stearns Street SR-118 WB Ramps
SR-118 WB Ramps Stearns Street SR-118 WB Ramps
478
2 NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Existing Plus Project Weekday Off-Site ADT Volumes Traffic Volumes Ref. Energy Levels Dist Ld Le Ln
Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix
ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) Day Eve Night MTd HTd MTe HTe MTn HTn A MT HT Adj A MT HT Total A MT HT Total A MT HT Total Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume (mph) ReceptorFactor (1) dB(A) Trucks Trucks CNEL Stearns Street n/o SR-118
Existing (AM) 2 0 7,880 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 57.8 #### #### 756 124 49 7 2 11 4 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 55.3 50.1 53.8 58.3 52.3 42.5 43.6 53.2 39.1 40.7 44.5 46.8 Existing (PM) 2 0 7,696 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 57.7 #### 977 739 121 48 7 2 10 4 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 55.2 50.0 53.7 58.2 52.2 42.4 43.5 53.1 39.0 40.6 44.4 46.7 Existing plus Project (AM) 2 0 7,880 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 57.8 #### #### 756 124 49 7 2 11 4 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 55.3 50.1 53.8 58.3 52.3 42.5 43.6 53.2 39.1 40.7 44.5 46.8 Existing plus Project (PM) 2 0 7,696 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 57.7 #### 977 739 121 48 7 2 10 4 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 55.2 50.0 53.7 58.2 52.2 42.4 43.5 53.1 39.0 40.6 44.4 46.7 Future (AM) 2 0 10,120 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 58.9 #### #### 972 159 63 9 2 14 6 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 56.4 51.2 54.8 59.4 53.4 43.6 44.7 54.3 40.2 41.8 45.6 47.9 Future (PM) 2 0 10,632 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 59.1 #### #### #### 167 66 10 2 14 6 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 56.6 51.4 55.1 59.6 53.6 43.8 44.9 54.5 40.4 42.0 45.8 48.1 Future plus Project (AM) 2 0 10,120 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 58.9 #### #### 972 159 63 9 2 14 6 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 56.4 51.2 54.8 59.4 53.4 43.6 44.7 54.3 40.2 41.8 45.6 47.9 Future plus Project (PM) 2 0 10,632 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 59.1 #### #### #### 167 66 10 2 14 6 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 56.6 51.4 55.1 59.6 53.6 43.8 44.9 54.5 40.4 42.0 45.8 48.1 Stearns Street s/o SR-118 WB
Existing (AM) 2 0 11,616 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 59.5 #### #### #### 183 72 11 2 16 7 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 57.0 51.8 55.4 60.0 54.0 44.2 45.3 54.9 40.8 42.4 46.2 48.5 Existing (PM) 2 0 10,704 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 59.1 #### #### #### 168 67 10 2 14 6 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 56.6 51.5 55.1 59.6 53.6 43.9 44.9 54.6 40.4 42.0 45.9 48.2 Existing plus Project (AM) 2 0 11,632 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 59.5 #### #### #### 183 73 11 2 16 7 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 57.0 51.8 55.4 60.0 54.0 44.2 45.3 54.9 40.8 42.4 46.2 48.5 Existing plus Project (PM) 2 0 10,704 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 59.1 #### #### #### 168 67 10 2 14 6 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 56.6 51.5 55.1 59.6 53.6 43.9 44.9 54.6 40.4 42.0 45.9 48.2 Future (AM) 2 0 14,272 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.4 #### #### #### 225 89 13 3 19 8 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 57.9 52.7 56.3 60.9 54.9 45.1 46.2 55.8 41.7 43.2 47.1 49.4 Future (PM) 2 0 14,096 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.3 #### #### #### 222 88 13 3 19 8 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 57.8 52.6 56.3 60.8 54.8 45.1 46.1 55.8 41.6 43.2 47.0 49.3 Future plus Project (AM) 2 0 14,288 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.4 #### #### #### 225 89 13 3 19 8 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 57.9 52.7 56.3 60.9 54.9 45.1 46.2 55.8 41.7 43.3 47.1 49.4 Future plus Project (PM) 2 0 14,096 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.3 #### #### #### 222 88 13 3 19 8 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 57.8 52.6 56.3 60.8 54.8 45.1 46.1 55.8 41.6 43.2 47.0 49.3 SR-118 WB ramps e/o
Existing (AM) 4 15 7,504 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.8 #### 953 720 118 47 7 1 10 4 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 61.2 53.3 54.2 62.5 58.2 45.8 44.0 58.6 45.0 43.9 44.9 49.4 Existing (PM) 4 15 8,160 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.2 #### #### 783 128 51 7 2 11 5 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 61.6 53.7 54.5 62.9 58.6 46.1 44.4 59.0 45.4 44.3 45.3 49.8 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 7,520 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.8 #### 955 722 118 47 7 1 10 4 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 61.2 53.4 54.2 62.6 58.2 45.8 44.0 58.6 45.0 43.9 44.9 49.4 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 8,160 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.2 #### #### 783 128 51 7 2 11 5 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 61.6 53.7 54.5 62.9 58.6 46.1 44.4 59.0 45.4 44.3 45.3 49.8 Future (AM) 4 15 7,832 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.0 #### 995 752 123 49 7 2 11 4 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 61.4 53.5 54.4 62.7 58.4 45.9 44.2 58.8 45.2 44.1 45.1 49.6 Future (PM) 4 15 10,128 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.1 #### #### 972 159 63 9 2 14 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.5 54.6 55.5 63.8 59.5 47.1 45.3 59.9 46.3 45.2 46.2 50.7 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 7,848 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.0 #### 997 753 124 49 7 2 11 4 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 61.4 53.5 54.4 62.7 58.4 46.0 44.2 58.8 45.2 44.1 45.1 49.6 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 10,128 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.1 #### #### 972 159 63 9 2 14 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.5 54.6 55.5 63.8 59.5 47.1 45.3 59.9 46.3 45.2 46.2 50.7 SR-118 WB ramps w/o
Existing (AM) 4 15 1,672 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 55.3 #### 212 161 26 10 2 0 2 1 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 54.7 46.8 47.7 56.0 51.7 39.2 37.5 52.1 38.5 37.4 38.4 42.9 Existing (PM) 4 15 1,728 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 55.4 #### 219 166 27 11 2 0 2 1 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 54.8 47.0 47.8 56.2 51.8 39.4 37.6 52.2 38.7 37.5 38.6 43.0 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 1,672 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 55.3 #### 212 161 26 10 2 0 2 1 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 54.7 46.8 47.7 56.0 51.7 39.2 37.5 52.1 38.5 37.4 38.4 42.9 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 1,728 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 55.4 #### 219 166 27 11 2 0 2 1 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 54.8 47.0 47.8 56.2 51.8 39.4 37.6 52.2 38.7 37.5 38.6 43.0 Future (AM) 4 15 1,104 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 53.5 858 140 106 17 7 1 0 1 1 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 52.9 45.0 45.9 54.2 49.9 37.4 35.7 50.3 36.7 35.6 36.6 41.1 Future (PM) 4 15 3,320 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 58.3 #### 422 319 52 21 3 1 4 2 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 57.7 49.8 50.6 59.0 54.7 42.2 40.5 55.1 41.5 40.4 41.4 45.9 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 1,104 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 53.5 858 140 106 17 7 1 0 1 1 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 52.9 45.0 45.9 54.2 49.9 37.4 35.7 50.3 36.7 35.6 36.6 41.1 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 3,320 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 58.3 #### 422 319 52 21 3 1 4 2 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 57.7 49.8 50.6 59.0 54.7 42.2 40.5 55.1 41.5 40.4 41.4 45.9 Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%
(1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover.
479
Project Name: Santa Susana Mixed-Use Redevelopment rev. (Date) If Peak Hour = 6% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 16.667 Weekday AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes If Peak Hour = 7% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 14.286 If Peak Hour = 8% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 12.5
Intersection: 7 If Peak Hour = 9% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 11.111 Stearns Street & SR-118 EB ramps If Peak Hour = 10% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 10 ADT
Road
Southbound Leg North of South of East of West of
right through left Cross Street
Existing (AM) 393 489 29 Existing (AM) 15,440.0 13,704.0 616.0 5,728.0 Existing (PM) 162 597 53 Existing (PM) 13,976.0 13,568.0 1,144.0 5,200.0 Existing plus Pro 393 491 29 Existing plus Proj 15,552.0 13,816.0 616.0 5,728.0 Existing plus Pro 162 597 53 Existing plus Proj 13,976.0 13,568.0 1,144.0 5,200.0 Future (AM) 373 554 31 Future (AM) 16,984.0 15,016.0 664.0 5,416.0 Future (PM) 445 591 27 Future (PM) 17,920.0 15,344.0 520.0 6,040.0 Eastbound Future plus Proje 373 556 31 Westbound Future plus Proje 17,096.0 15,128.0 664.0 5,416.0 left through right Future plus Proje 445 591 27 right through left Future plus Proje 17,920.0 15,344.0 520.0 6,040.0 Existing (AM) 43 19 260 Existing (AM) 20 1 4
Existing (PM) 131 41 315 Existing (PM) 34 1 7
Existing plus Pro 43 19 260 N Existing plus Pro 20 1 4
Existing plus Pro 131 41 315 W E Existing plus Pro 34 1 7 Future (AM) 70 6 228 S Future (AM) 23 14
Future (PM) 79 1 230 Future (PM) 19 11
Future plus Proje 70 6 228 Future plus Proje 23 14
Future plus Proje 79 1 230 Northbound Future plus Proje 19 11 left through right
Existing (AM) 956 4
Existing (PM) 770 7
Existing plus Project (AM 968 4
Existing plus Project (PM 770 7
Future (AM) 1072 9
Future (PM) 1079 7
Future plus Project (AM) 1084 9
Future plus Project (PM) 1079 7
Stearns Street Stearns Street SR-118 EB ramps
SR-118 EB ramps Stearns Street SR-118 EB ramps
480
2 NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Existing Plus Project Weekday Off-Site ADT Volumes Traffic Volumes Ref. Energy Levels Dist Ld Le Ln
Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix
ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) Day Eve Night MTd HTd MTe HTe MTn HTn A MT HT Adj A MT HT Total A MT HT Total A MT HT Total Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume (mph) ReceptorFactor (1) dB(A) Trucks Trucks CNEL Stearns Street n/o SR-118 EB
Existing (AM) 2 0 15,440 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.7 #### #### #### 243 96 14 3 21 9 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 58.2 53.0 56.7 61.2 55.2 45.5 46.5 56.2 42.0 43.6 47.4 49.7 Existing (PM) 2 0 13,976 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.3 #### #### #### 220 87 13 3 19 8 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 57.8 52.6 56.2 60.8 54.8 45.0 46.1 55.7 41.6 43.2 47.0 49.3 Existing plus Project (AM) 2 0 15,552 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.8 #### #### #### 245 97 14 3 21 9 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 58.2 53.1 56.7 61.3 55.3 45.5 46.5 56.2 42.1 43.6 47.5 49.8 Existing plus Project (PM) 2 0 13,976 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.3 #### #### #### 220 87 13 3 19 8 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 57.8 52.6 56.2 60.8 54.8 45.0 46.1 55.7 41.6 43.2 47.0 49.3 Future (AM) 2 0 16,984 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.1 #### #### #### 267 106 15 3 23 10 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 58.6 53.5 57.1 61.6 55.6 45.9 46.9 56.6 42.4 44.0 47.9 50.2 Future (PM) 2 0 17,920 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.4 #### #### #### 282 112 16 4 24 10 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 58.9 53.7 57.3 61.9 55.9 46.1 47.2 56.8 42.7 44.2 48.1 50.4 Future plus Project (AM) 2 0 17,096 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.2 #### #### #### 269 107 16 3 23 10 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 58.6 53.5 57.1 61.7 55.7 45.9 47.0 56.6 42.5 44.0 47.9 50.2 Future plus Project (PM) 2 0 17,920 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.4 #### #### #### 282 112 16 4 24 10 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 58.9 53.7 57.3 61.9 55.9 46.1 47.2 56.8 42.7 44.2 48.1 50.4 Stearns Street s/o SR-118 EB
Existing (AM) 2 0 13,704 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.2 #### #### #### 216 85 12 3 19 8 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 57.7 52.5 56.2 60.7 54.7 44.9 46.0 55.6 41.5 43.1 46.9 49.2 Existing (PM) 2 0 13,568 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.2 #### #### #### 214 85 12 3 18 8 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 57.6 52.5 56.1 60.7 54.7 44.9 45.9 55.6 41.5 43.0 46.9 49.2 Existing plus Project (AM) 2 0 13,816 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.2 #### #### #### 217 86 13 3 19 8 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 57.7 52.6 56.2 60.8 54.7 45.0 46.0 55.7 41.5 43.1 47.0 49.3 Existing plus Project (PM) 2 0 13,568 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.2 #### #### #### 214 85 12 3 18 8 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 57.6 52.5 56.1 60.7 54.7 44.9 45.9 55.6 41.5 43.0 46.9 49.2 Future (AM) 2 0 15,016 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.6 #### #### #### 236 94 14 3 20 8 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 58.1 52.9 56.6 61.1 55.1 45.3 46.4 56.0 41.9 43.5 47.3 49.6 Future (PM) 2 0 15,344 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.7 #### #### #### 241 96 14 3 21 9 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 58.2 53.0 56.6 61.2 55.2 45.4 46.5 56.1 42.0 43.6 47.4 49.7 Future plus Project (AM) 2 0 15,128 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.6 #### #### #### 238 94 14 3 20 9 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 58.1 53.0 56.6 61.1 55.1 45.4 46.4 56.1 41.9 43.5 47.4 49.7 Future plus Project (PM) 2 0 15,344 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.7 #### #### #### 241 96 14 3 21 9 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 58.2 53.0 56.6 61.2 55.2 45.4 46.5 56.1 42.0 43.6 47.4 49.7 SR-118 EB ramps e/o Stearns
Existing (AM) 4 15 616 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 50.9 479 78 59 10 4 1 0 1 0 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 50.3 42.5 43.3 51.7 47.4 34.9 33.2 47.8 34.2 33.0 34.1 38.6 Existing (PM) 4 15 1,144 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 53.6 889 145 110 18 7 1 0 2 1 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 53.0 45.2 46.0 54.4 50.1 37.6 35.8 50.4 36.9 35.7 36.8 41.3 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 616 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 50.9 479 78 59 10 4 1 0 1 0 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 50.3 42.5 43.3 51.7 47.4 34.9 33.2 47.8 34.2 33.0 34.1 38.6 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 1,144 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 53.6 889 145 110 18 7 1 0 2 1 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 53.0 45.2 46.0 54.4 50.1 37.6 35.8 50.4 36.9 35.7 36.8 41.3 Future (AM) 4 15 664 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 51.3 516 84 64 10 4 1 0 1 0 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 50.7 42.8 43.6 52.0 47.7 35.2 33.5 48.1 34.5 33.4 34.4 38.9 Future (PM) 4 15 520 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 50.2 404 66 50 8 3 0 0 1 0 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 49.6 41.8 42.6 51.0 46.6 34.2 32.4 47.0 33.4 32.3 33.3 37.8 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 664 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 51.3 516 84 64 10 4 1 0 1 0 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 50.7 42.8 43.6 52.0 47.7 35.2 33.5 48.1 34.5 33.4 34.4 38.9 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 520 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 50.2 404 66 50 8 3 0 0 1 0 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 49.6 41.8 42.6 51.0 46.6 34.2 32.4 47.0 33.4 32.3 33.3 37.8 SR-118 EB ramps w/o
Existing (AM) 4 15 5,728 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.6 #### 727 550 90 36 5 1 8 3 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 60.0 52.2 53.0 61.4 57.1 44.6 42.8 57.4 43.9 42.7 43.8 48.2 Existing (PM) 4 15 5,200 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.2 #### 660 499 82 32 5 1 7 3 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 59.6 51.8 52.6 61.0 56.6 44.2 42.4 57.0 43.4 42.3 43.3 47.8 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 5,728 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.6 #### 727 550 90 36 5 1 8 3 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 60.0 52.2 53.0 61.4 57.1 44.6 42.8 57.4 43.9 42.7 43.8 48.2 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 5,200 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.2 #### 660 499 82 32 5 1 7 3 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 59.6 51.8 52.6 61.0 56.6 44.2 42.4 57.0 43.4 42.3 43.3 47.8 Future (AM) 4 15 5,416 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.4 #### 688 520 85 34 5 1 7 3 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 59.8 51.9 52.8 61.1 56.8 44.3 42.6 57.2 43.6 42.5 43.5 48.0 Future (PM) 4 15 6,040 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.9 #### 767 580 95 38 5 1 8 3 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 60.3 52.4 53.2 61.6 57.3 44.8 43.1 57.7 44.1 42.9 44.0 48.5 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 5,416 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.4 #### 688 520 85 34 5 1 7 3 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 59.8 51.9 52.8 61.1 56.8 44.3 42.6 57.2 43.6 42.5 43.5 48.0 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 6,040 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.9 #### 767 580 95 38 5 1 8 3 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 60.3 52.4 53.2 61.6 57.3 44.8 43.1 57.7 44.1 42.9 44.0 48.5 Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%
(1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover.
481
Project Name: Santa Susana Mixed-Use Redevelopment rev. (Date) If Peak Hour = 6% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 16.667 Weekday AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes If Peak Hour = 7% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 14.286 If Peak Hour = 8% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 12.5
Intersection: 8 If Peak Hour = 9% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 11.111 Stearns Street & Cochran Street If Peak Hour = 10% of ADT, Scaling Factor = 10 ADT
Road
Southbound Leg North of South of East of West of
right through left Cross Street
Existing (AM) 216 244 267 Existing (AM) 13,104.0 7,328.0 9,792.0 9,968.0 Existing (PM) 246 427 162 Existing (PM) 12,976.0 9,128.0 7,304.0 9,472.0 Existing plus Pro 218 244 267 Existing plus Proj 13,120.0 7,808.0 10,280.0 9,992.0 Existing plus Pro 246 427 162 Existing plus Proj 12,976.0 8,552.0 6,728.0 9,472.0 Future (AM) 252 256 314 Future (AM) 16,560.0 11,288.0 12,752.0 13,080.0 Future (PM) 163 472 444 Future (PM) 13,640.0 9,696.0 17,160.0 11,440.0 Eastbound Future plus Proje 254 256 314 Westbound Future plus Proje 16,672.0 11,280.0 12,800.0 13,248.0 left through right Future plus Proje 163 472 444 right through left Future plus Proje 13,640.0 9,696.0 17,160.0 11,440.0 Existing (AM) 269 396 69 Existing (AM) 231 217 44
Existing (PM) 292 295 117 Existing (PM) 116 178 45
Existing plus Pro 269 396 69 N Existing plus Pro 231 218 44 Existing plus Pro 292 295 117 W E Existing plus Pro 116 178 45 Future (AM) 314 506 132 S Future (AM) 261 297 48
Future (PM) 79 513 48 Future (PM) 280 555 192
Future plus Proje 326 512 132 Future plus Proje 261 298 48 Future plus Proje 79 513 48 Northbound Future plus Proje 280 555 192 left through right
Existing (AM) 79 411 69
Existing (PM) 56 379 117
Existing plus Pro 79 411 129
Existing plus Pro 56 379 45
Future (AM) 134 673 168
Future (PM) 72 267 161
Future plus Proje 134 673 167
Future plus Proje 72 267 161
Stearns Street Stearns Street Cochran Street
Cochran Street Stearns Street Cochran Street
482
2 NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Existing Plus Project Weekday Off-Site ADT Volumes Traffic Volumes Ref. Energy Levels Dist Ld Le Ln
Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix
ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) Day Eve Night MTd HTd MTe HTe MTn HTn A MT HT Adj A MT HT Total A MT HT Total A MT HT Total Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume (mph) ReceptorFactor (1) dB(A) Trucks Trucks CNEL Stearns Street n/o Cochran
Existing (AM) 4 0 13,104 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.1 #### #### #### 206 82 12 3 18 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 63.5 55.6 56.5 64.8 60.5 48.0 46.3 60.9 47.3 46.2 47.2 51.7 Existing (PM) 4 0 12,976 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.0 #### #### #### 204 81 12 3 18 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 63.4 55.6 56.4 64.8 60.5 48.0 46.2 60.9 47.3 46.1 47.2 51.7 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 0 13,120 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.1 #### #### #### 206 82 12 3 18 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 63.5 55.6 56.5 64.8 60.5 48.1 46.3 60.9 47.3 46.2 47.2 51.7 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 0 12,976 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.0 #### #### #### 204 81 12 3 18 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 63.4 55.6 56.4 64.8 60.5 48.0 46.2 60.9 47.3 46.1 47.2 51.7 Future (AM) 4 0 16,560 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.1 #### #### #### 261 103 15 3 22 9 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 64.5 56.6 57.5 65.8 61.5 49.1 47.3 61.9 48.3 47.2 48.2 52.7 Future (PM) 4 0 13,640 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.3 #### #### #### 215 85 12 3 18 8 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 63.7 55.8 56.6 65.0 60.7 48.2 46.5 61.1 47.5 46.3 47.4 51.9 Future plus Project (AM) 4 0 16,672 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.1 #### #### #### 262 104 15 3 23 9 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 64.5 56.7 57.5 65.9 61.6 49.1 47.3 61.9 48.4 47.2 48.3 52.8 Future plus Project (PM) 4 0 13,640 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.3 #### #### #### 215 85 12 3 18 8 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.7 63.7 55.8 56.6 65.0 60.7 48.2 46.5 61.1 47.5 46.3 47.4 51.9 Stearns Street s/o Cochran
Existing (AM) 2 0 7,328 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 57.5 #### 931 703 115 46 7 1 10 4 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 55.0 49.8 53.4 58.0 52.0 42.2 43.3 52.9 38.8 40.4 44.2 46.5 Existing (PM) 2 0 9,128 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 58.4 #### #### 876 144 57 8 2 12 5 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 55.9 50.8 54.4 59.0 52.9 43.2 44.2 53.9 39.7 41.3 45.2 47.5 Existing plus Project (AM) 2 0 7,808 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 57.8 #### 992 750 123 49 7 2 11 4 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 55.2 50.1 53.7 58.3 52.3 42.5 43.6 53.2 39.1 40.6 44.5 46.8 Existing plus Project (PM) 2 0 8,552 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 58.2 #### #### 821 135 53 8 2 12 5 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 55.6 50.5 54.1 58.7 52.7 42.9 43.9 53.6 39.5 41.0 44.9 47.2 Future (AM) 2 0 11,288 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 59.4 #### #### #### 178 70 10 2 15 6 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 56.8 51.7 55.3 59.9 53.9 44.1 45.2 54.8 40.7 42.2 46.1 48.4 Future (PM) 2 0 9,696 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 58.7 #### #### 931 153 60 9 2 13 5 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 56.2 51.0 54.7 59.2 53.2 43.4 44.5 54.1 40.0 41.6 45.4 47.7 Future plus Project (AM) 2 0 11,280 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 59.4 #### #### #### 178 70 10 2 15 6 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 56.8 51.7 55.3 59.9 53.9 44.1 45.1 54.8 40.7 42.2 46.1 48.4 Future plus Project (PM) 2 0 9,696 25 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 58.7 #### #### 931 153 60 9 2 13 5 59.4 71.1 78.7 -1.8 56.2 51.0 54.7 59.2 53.2 43.4 44.5 54.1 40.0 41.6 45.4 47.7 Cochran Street e/o Stearns
Existing (AM) 4 15 9,792 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.0 #### #### 940 154 61 9 2 13 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.4 54.5 55.3 63.7 59.4 46.9 45.2 59.8 46.2 45.0 46.1 50.6 Existing (PM) 4 15 7,304 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.7 #### 928 701 115 46 7 1 10 4 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 61.1 53.2 54.1 62.4 58.1 45.6 43.9 58.5 44.9 43.8 44.8 49.3 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 10,280 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.2 #### #### 987 162 64 9 2 14 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.6 54.7 55.5 63.9 59.6 47.1 45.4 60.0 46.4 45.3 46.3 50.8 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 6,728 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.3 #### 854 646 106 42 6 1 9 4 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 60.7 52.9 53.7 62.1 57.8 45.3 43.5 58.1 44.6 43.4 44.5 48.9 Future (AM) 4 15 12,752 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.1 #### #### #### 201 80 12 3 17 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.5 55.6 56.5 64.8 60.5 48.1 46.3 60.9 47.3 46.2 47.2 51.7 Future (PM) 4 15 17,160 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.4 #### #### #### 270 107 16 3 23 10 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.8 56.9 57.8 66.1 61.8 49.4 47.6 62.2 48.6 47.5 48.5 53.0 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 12,800 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.1 #### #### #### 201 80 12 3 17 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.5 55.7 56.5 64.9 60.5 48.1 46.3 60.9 47.3 46.2 47.3 51.7 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 17,160 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.4 #### #### #### 270 107 16 3 23 10 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 64.8 56.9 57.8 66.1 61.8 49.4 47.6 62.2 48.6 47.5 48.5 53.0 Cochran Street w/o Stearns
Existing (AM) 4 15 9,968 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.0 #### #### 957 157 62 9 2 13 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.4 54.6 55.4 63.8 59.5 47.0 45.2 59.9 46.3 45.1 46.2 50.7 Existing (PM) 4 15 9,472 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.8 #### #### 909 149 59 9 2 13 5 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.2 54.4 55.2 63.6 59.2 46.8 45.0 59.6 46.0 44.9 46.0 50.4 Existing plus Project (AM) 4 15 9,992 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.0 #### #### 959 157 62 9 2 14 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.4 54.6 55.4 63.8 59.5 47.0 45.3 59.9 46.3 45.1 46.2 50.7 Existing plus Project (PM) 4 15 9,472 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.8 #### #### 909 149 59 9 2 13 5 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 62.2 54.4 55.2 63.6 59.2 46.8 45.0 59.6 46.0 44.9 46.0 50.4 Future (AM) 4 15 13,080 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.2 #### #### #### 206 82 12 3 18 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.6 55.8 56.6 65.0 60.6 48.2 46.4 61.0 47.4 46.3 47.4 51.8 Future (PM) 4 15 11,440 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.6 #### #### #### 180 71 10 2 15 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.0 55.2 56.0 64.4 60.1 47.6 45.8 60.4 46.9 45.7 46.8 51.3 Future plus Project (AM) 4 15 13,248 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.3 #### #### #### 208 83 12 3 18 7 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.7 55.8 56.6 65.0 60.7 48.2 46.5 61.1 47.5 46.4 47.4 51.9 Future plus Project (PM) 4 15 11,440 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.6 #### #### #### 180 71 10 2 15 6 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.6 63.0 55.2 56.0 64.4 60.1 47.6 45.8 60.4 46.9 45.7 46.8 51.3 Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%
(1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover.
483
484
485
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date########
Case Descr Grading
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 1 Residential 51.2 51.2 51.2
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 50 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 50 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 50 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 50 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 50 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 50 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 89.6 82.6
Excavator 80.7 76.7
Excavator 80.7 76.7
Excavator 80.7 76.7
Dozer 81.7 77.7
Dozer 81.7 77.7
Total 89.6 86.4
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 2 Residential 56 56 56
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 765 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 765 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 765 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 765 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 765 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 765 0
486
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 65.9 58.9
Excavator 57 53
Excavator 57 53
Excavator 57 53
Dozer 58 54
Dozer 58 54
Total 65.9 62.7
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 3 Residential 51.6 51.6 51.6
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 235 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 235 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 235 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 235 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 235 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 235 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 76.1 69.1
Excavator 67.3 63.3
Excavator 67.3 63.3
Excavator 67.3 63.3
Dozer 68.2 64.2
Dozer 68.2 64.2
Total 76.1 73
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 4 Residential 48.9 48.9 48.9
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
487
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 245 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 245 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 245 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 245 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 245 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 245 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 75.8 68.8
Excavator 66.9 62.9
Excavator 66.9 62.9
Excavator 66.9 62.9
Dozer 67.9 63.9
Dozer 67.9 63.9
Total 75.8 72.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #5 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 5 Residential 69.2 69.2 69.2
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 385 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 385 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 385 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 385 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 385 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 385 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 71.9 64.9
Excavator 63 59
Excavator 63 59
Excavator 63 59
Dozer 63.9 60
Dozer 63.9 60
Total 71.9 68.7
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
488
489
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date########
Case Descr Grading
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 1 Residential 51.2 51.2 51.2
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 50 0
Grader No 40 85 50 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 50 0
Tractor No 40 84 50 0
Tractor No 40 84 50 0
Tractor No 40 84 50 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Excavator 80.7 76.7
Grader 85 81
Dozer 81.7 77.7
Tractor 84 80
Tractor 84 80
Tractor 84 80
Total 85 87.3
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 2 Residential 56 56 56
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 765 0
Grader No 40 85 765 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 765 0
Tractor No 40 84 765 0
Tractor No 40 84 765 0
Tractor No 40 84 765 0
490
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Excavator 57 53
Grader 61.3 57.3
Dozer 58 54
Tractor 60.3 56.3
Tractor 60.3 56.3
Tractor 60.3 56.3
Total 61.3 63.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 3 Residential 51.6 51.6 51.6
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 235 0
Grader No 40 85 235 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 235 0
Tractor No 40 84 235 0
Tractor No 40 84 235 0
Tractor No 40 84 235 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Excavator 67.3 63.3
Grader 71.6 67.6
Dozer 68.2 64.2
Tractor 70.6 66.6
Tractor 70.6 66.6
Tractor 70.6 66.6
Total 71.6 73.8
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 4 Residential 48.9 48.9 48.9
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
491
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 245 0
Grader No 40 85 245 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 245 0
Tractor No 40 84 245 0
Tractor No 40 84 245 0
Tractor No 40 84 245 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Excavator 66.9 62.9
Grader 71.2 67.2
Dozer 67.9 63.9
Tractor 70.2 66.2
Tractor 70.2 66.2
Tractor 70.2 66.2
Total 71.2 73.5
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #5 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 5 Residential 69.2 69.2 69.2
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 385 0
Grader No 40 85 385 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 385 0
Tractor No 40 84 385 0
Tractor No 40 84 385 0
Tractor No 40 84 385 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Excavator 63 59
Grader 67.3 63.3
Dozer 63.9 60
Tractor 66.3 62.3
Tractor 66.3 62.3
Tractor 66.3 62.3
Total 67.3 69.5
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
492
493
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date########
Case DescriBuilding Construction
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 1 Residential 51.2 51.2 51.2
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 50 0
Forklift No 40 85 50 0
Forklift No 40 85 50 0
Forklift No 40 85 50 0
Generator No 50 80.6 50 0
Tractor No 40 84 50 0
Tractor No 40 84 50 0
Tractor No 40 84 50 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 50 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Crane 80.6 72.6
Forklift 85 81
Forklift 85 81
Forklift 85 81
Generator 80.6 77.6
Tractor 84 80
Tractor 84 80
Tractor 84 80
Welder / Torch 74 70
Total 85 88.8
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 2 Residential 56 56 56
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 765 0
Forklift No 40 85 765 0
Forklift No 40 85 765 0
Forklift No 40 85 765 0
Generator No 50 80.6 765 0
Tractor No 40 84 765 0
Tractor No 40 84 765 0
Tractor No 40 84 765 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 765 0
494
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Crane 56.9 48.9
Forklift 61.3 57.3
Forklift 61.3 57.3
Forklift 61.3 57.3
Generator 56.9 53.9
Tractor 60.3 56.3
Tractor 60.3 56.3
Tractor 60.3 56.3
Welder / Torch 50.3 46.3
Total 61.3 65.2
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 3 Residential 51.6 51.6 51.6
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 235 0
Forklift No 40 85 235 0
Forklift No 40 85 235 0
Forklift No 40 85 235 0
Generator No 50 80.6 235 0
Tractor No 40 84 235 0
Tractor No 40 84 235 0
Tractor No 40 84 235 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 235 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Crane 67.1 59.1
Forklift 71.6 67.6
Forklift 71.6 67.6
Forklift 71.6 67.6
Generator 67.2 64.2
Tractor 70.6 66.6
Tractor 70.6 66.6
Tractor 70.6 66.6
Welder / Torch 60.6 56.6
Total 71.6 75.4
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 4 Residential 48.9 48.9 48.9
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 245 0
495
Forklift No 40 85 245 0
Forklift No 40 85 245 0
Forklift No 40 85 245 0
Generator No 50 80.6 245 0
Tractor No 40 84 245 0
Tractor No 40 84 245 0
Tractor No 40 84 245 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 245 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Crane 66.7 58.8
Forklift 71.2 67.2
Forklift 71.2 67.2
Forklift 71.2 67.2
Generator 66.8 63.8
Tractor 70.2 66.2
Tractor 70.2 66.2
Tractor 70.2 66.2
Welder / Torch 60.2 56.2
Total 71.2 75
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #5 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 5 Residential 69.2 69.2 69.2
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 385 0
Forklift No 40 85 385 0
Forklift No 40 85 385 0
Forklift No 40 85 385 0
Generator No 50 80.6 385 0
Tractor No 40 84 385 0
Tractor No 40 84 385 0
Tractor No 40 84 385 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 385 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Crane 62.8 54.9
Forklift 67.3 63.3
Forklift 67.3 63.3
Forklift 67.3 63.3
Generator 62.9 59.9
Tractor 66.3 62.3
Tractor 66.3 62.3
Tractor 66.3 62.3
Welder / Torch 56.3 52.3
Total 67.3 71.1
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
496
497
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date########
Case Descr Paving
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 1 Residential 51.2 51.2 51.2
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 50 0
Paver No 50 77.2 50 0
Paver No 50 77.2 50 0
Paver No 50 77.2 50 0
Roller No 20 80 50 0
Roller No 20 80 50 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Paver 77.2 74.2
Paver 77.2 74.2
Paver 77.2 74.2
Paver 77.2 74.2
Roller 80 73
Roller 80 73
Total 80 81.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 2 Residential 56 56 56
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 765 0
Paver No 50 77.2 765 0
Paver No 50 77.2 765 0
Paver No 50 77.2 765 0
Roller No 20 80 765 0
Roller No 20 80 765 0
498
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Paver 53.5 50.5
Paver 53.5 50.5
Paver 53.5 50.5
Paver 53.5 50.5
Roller 56.3 49.3
Roller 56.3 49.3
Total 56.3 57.9
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 3 Residential 51.6 51.6 51.6
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 235 0
Paver No 50 77.2 235 0
Paver No 50 77.2 235 0
Paver No 50 77.2 235 0
Roller No 20 80 235 0
Roller No 20 80 235 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Paver 63.8 60.8
Paver 63.8 60.8
Paver 63.8 60.8
Paver 63.8 60.8
Roller 66.6 59.6
Roller 66.6 59.6
Total 66.6 68.2
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 4 Residential 48.9 48.9 48.9
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
499
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 245 0
Paver No 50 77.2 245 0
Paver No 50 77.2 245 0
Paver No 50 77.2 245 0
Roller No 20 80 245 0
Roller No 20 80 245 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Paver 63.4 60.4
Paver 63.4 60.4
Paver 63.4 60.4
Paver 63.4 60.4
Roller 66.2 59.2
Roller 66.2 59.2
Total 66.2 67.8
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #5 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 5 Residential 69.2 69.2 69.2
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 385 0
Paver No 50 77.2 385 0
Paver No 50 77.2 385 0
Paver No 50 77.2 385 0
Roller No 20 80 385 0
Roller No 20 80 385 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Paver 59.5 56.5
Paver 59.5 56.5
Paver 59.5 56.5
Paver 59.5 56.5
Roller 62.3 55.3
Roller 62.3 55.3
Total 62.3 63.9
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
500
501
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date########
Case Descr Architectural Coating
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 1 Residential 51.2 51.2 51.2
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 50 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 77.7 73.7
Total 77.7 73.7
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 2 Residential 56 56 56
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 765 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 54 50
Total 54 50
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 3 Residential 51.6 51.6 51.6
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
502
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 235 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 64.2 60.2
Total 64.2 60.2
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 4 Residential 48.9 48.9 48.9
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 245 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 63.9 59.9
Total 63.9 59.9
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #5 ----
Baselines (dBA)
DescriptionLand Use Daytime Evening Night
Site 5 Residential 69.2 69.2 69.2
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 385 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 59.9 56
Total 59.9 56
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
503
504
Meridian Consultants LLC Santa Susana Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project Construction Vibration Model
(50 feet)
Rev: 11-12-2012
Equipment Pieces of
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(in/sec)
Distance from
Equipment
PPV at
adjusted
distance
RMS velocity
amplitude in
in/sec at
adjusted
distancea
RMS
Vibration
level in
VdB at
adjusted
distance
Caisson drilling 1 0.089 50 0.031 0.008 78
Jackhammer 1 0.035 50 0.012 0.003 70
Large bulldozer 1 0.089 50 0.031 0.008 78
Loaded trucks 1 0.076 50 0.027 0.007 77
Pile Drive (impact) 1 0.644 50 0.228 0.057 95
Vibratory Roller 1 0.210 80 0.037 0.009 79
Small bulldozer 1 0.003 50 0.001 0.000 48
* Suggested Vibration Thresholds per the Federal Transit Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment September 2018, Table 7-4
505
Meridian Consultants LLC Santa Susana Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project Construction Vibration Model
(765 feet)
Rev: 11/12/2012
Equipment Pieces of
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(in/sec)
Distance from
Equipment
PPV at
adjusted
distance
RMS velocity
amplitude in
in/sec at
adjusted
distancea
RMS
Vibration
level in
VdB at
adjusted
distance
Caisson drilling 1 0.089 765 0.001 0.000 42
Jackhammer 1 0.035 765 0.000 0.000 34
Large bulldozer 1 0.089 765 0.001 0.000 42
Loaded trucks 1 0.076 765 0.000 0.000 41
Pile Drive (impact) 1 0.644 765 0.004 0.001 60
Vibratory Roller 1 0.210 765 0.001 0.000 50
Small bulldozer 1 0.003 765 0.000 0.000 13
* Suggested Vibration Thresholds per the Federal Transit Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment September 2018, Table 7-4
506
Meridian Consultants LLC Santa Susana Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project Construction Vibration Model
(235 feet)
Rev: 11-12-2012
Equipment Pieces of
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(in/sec)
Distance from
Equipment
PPV at
adjusted
distance
RMS velocity
amplitude in
in/sec at
adjusted
distancea
RMS
Vibration
level in
VdB at
adjusted
distance
Caisson drilling 1 0.089 235 0.003 0.001 58
Jackhammer 1 0.035 235 0.001 0.000 50
Large bulldozer 1 0.089 235 0.003 0.001 58
Loaded trucks 1 0.076 235 0.003 0.001 56
Pile Drive (impact) 1 0.644 235 0.022 0.006 75
Vibratory Roller 1 0.210 235 0.007 0.002 65
Small bulldozer 1 0.003 235 0.000 0.000 28
* Suggested Vibration Thresholds per the Federal Transit Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment September 2018, Table 7-4
507
Meridian Consultants LLC Santa Susana Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project Construction Vibration Model
(245 feet)
Rev: 11-12-2012
Equipment Pieces of
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(in/sec)
Distance from
Equipment
PPV at
adjusted
distance
RMS velocity
amplitude in
in/sec at
adjusted
distancea
RMS
Vibration
level in
VdB at
adjusted
distance
Caisson drilling 1 0.089 245 0.003 0.001 57
Jackhammer 1 0.035 245 0.001 0.000 49
Large bulldozer 1 0.089 245 0.003 0.001 57
Loaded trucks 1 0.076 245 0.002 0.001 56
Pile Drive (impact) 1 0.644 245 0.021 0.005 74
Vibratory Roller 1 0.210 245 0.007 0.002 65
Small bulldozer 1 0.003 245 0.000 0.000 28
* Suggested Vibration Thresholds per the Federal Transit Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment September 2018, Table 7-4
508
Meridian Consultants LLC Santa Susana Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project Construction Vibration Model
(385 feet)
Rev: 11/12/2012
Equipment Pieces of
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(in/sec)
Distance from
Equipment
PPV at
adjusted
distance
RMS velocity
amplitude in
in/sec at
adjusted
distancea
RMS
Vibration
level in
VdB at
adjusted
distance
Caisson drilling 1 0.089 385 0.001 0.000 51
Jackhammer 1 0.035 385 0.001 0.000 43
Large bulldozer 1 0.089 385 0.001 0.000 51
Loaded trucks 1 0.076 385 0.001 0.000 50
Pile Drive (impact) 1 0.644 385 0.011 0.003 69
Vibratory Roller 1 0.210 385 0.003 0.001 59
Small bulldozer 1 0.003 385 0.000 0.000 22
* Suggested Vibration Thresholds per the Federal Transit Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment September 2018, Table 7-4
509
510
Loading Zone
Receiver Fl Ldn/dB(A) Leq,d/dB(A) Leq,n/dB(A) Time slice 63Hz dB(A) Proposed Residential (R1) G 36.8 34 29.3 Ldn 7
Leq,d 4.3
Leq,n -0.5
511
Car Wash Tunnel
Receiver Fl Ldn/dB(A) Leq,d/dB(A) Leq,n/dB(A) Time slice 63Hz dB(A) Proposed Residential (R2) G 32.9 32.8 23.2 Ldn 32.9
Leq,d 32.8
Leq,n 23.2
Proposed Residential (R2) F2 34.6 34.4 24.9 Ldn 34.6
Leq,d 34.4
Leq,n 24.9
Proposed Residential (R3) G 29.2 29 19.4 Ldn 29.2
Leq,d 29
Leq,n 19.4
512

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
513

EXHIBIT
514
EXHIBIT 4 515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
601

EXHIBIT
602
NC 24/12-21
Neighborhood Council
Development Review Meeting Summary
Neighborhood Council No: 1
NC Meeting Date: December 9, 2021
Project No(s): TP-S-2021-0001/PD-S-2021-0005/AHA-2021-0001 Project Description: Request to construct a Mixed-Use project consisting of 280 apartment units and approximately 5,000 square feet of
commercial space, located at 2196 Tapo Street (north
portion of the existing Santa Susana Plaza Shopping
Center)
Case Planner: Claudia Pedroso
______________________________________________________________________ Questions and comments from the audience and responses from the applicant:

None.

Questions and comments from the Executive Board and responses from the applicant:

Will the existing parking lot be resurfaced to match the new parking areas? Yes it will.

What uses are on the roof of the parking structure?
There is no uses on the roof of the parking structure. It is a four level parking structure only.

Will residents be restricted to parking in the structure? Yes they will be. There will be 405 parking spaces in the structure for 280 units. This are approximately 1.45 parking spaces per unit.

What will the monthly rent be for the market rate units? While this will be determined at a later date, they expect the average rent to be approximately $2,300 per month. This is lower than the average rate of approximately $2,500 per month for Simi Valley.

EXHIBIT 5
603
NC 24/12-21
Can the live/work units be leased by two separate people? This may be possible.

What elements have been incorporated to prevent people living on the fourth floor on the east side from looking into the backyards of the homes on Workman Avenue?
There will be some added courtyards and fewer units facing that direction, plus the units will be set back from the edge of the building.

Comments: Many Executive Board members commented that this project will be a welcome addition to the city. It is a good use of the space, has an excellent design and will help revitalize Tapo Street. Executive Board members also stated that there should be more than five percent affordable housing. Some of these indicated that they would vote to recommend denial of the project for this reason.

Upon conclusion of the discussion, the following motion was made by Theresa Lewis and seconded by Roop Maan:

MOTION: Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the request to construct a Mixed-Use project consisting of 280 apartment units and approximately 5,000 square feet of commercial space, located at 2196 Tapo Street (north portion of the existing Santa Susana Plaza Shopping Center), with the recommendation that more affordable housing be added.

Executive Board vote: 8 Ayes; 2 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Audience vote: 0 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Unincorporated Area vote: None
The motion carried.
604
NC 25/12-21
Neighborhood Council
Development Review Meeting Summary
Neighborhood Council No: 2
NC Meeting Date: December 14, 2021
Project No(s): TP-S-2021-0001/PD-S-2021-0005/AHA-2021-0001 Project Description: Request to construct a Mixed-Use project consisting of 280 apartment units and approximately 5,000 square feet of
commercial space, located at 2196 Tapo Street (north
portion of the existing Santa Susana Plaza Shopping
Center)
Case Planner: Claudia Pedroso
______________________________________________________________________ Questions/comments from the audience and responses from the applicant:

What is the future of the two businesses currently located in the northern portion of the center?
The 99 Cent Store will be vacating the center when their lease expires. The Oasis Day When to they anticipate opening units for occupancy?
They hope to begin leasing units in early 2024.

Is the amount of parking in the parking structure anticipated to be adequate for the number of units in the development?
The City requires 312 spaces and the applicant is providing 405. This number of spaces is anticipated to be adequate, especially since a large number of units will be single occupancy studios.

Will the project increase the amount of traffic and number of accidents in the area? Traffic volumes will operate Level of Service A, which is better than the current situation.

This will also keep accidents to a minimum.
605
NC 25/12-21
Questions/comments from the Executive Board and responses from the applicant:

What areas are designated for visitor parking?
The first floor of parking structure is primarily visitor parking. The uncovered spaces in main parking lot can also be used.

Could the retailers prohibit the use of the uncovered spaces by visitors? No, because agreements will be put into place between the commercial and retail portions of the project to prevent such issues.

What do they anticipate the rents will be on the market rate units? The average rental rate for all types of units is anticipated to be approximately $2,300 per month. This is less than the average rental rate in Simi Valley of $2,500 per month.

Will the retail portion of the project be refreshed?
Yes, it will to coordinate with the new residential portion.

How will existing ingress/egress points be affected?
One point will be moved further south in the existing parking lot.

Upon conclusion of the discussion, the following motion was made by Karl Birch and seconded by John McHale:

More affordable housing be added
The number of parking spaces in the parking structure be increased to 560 Additional/alternative water sources be considered to mitigate the water usage from the project, especially for the park and the landscaping Executive Board vote: 8 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Audience vote: 3 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Unincorporated Area vote: None
The motion carried.
606

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
607

EXHIBIT
608
EXHIBIT 6
609
610
611
P 16/12-21(sy) 2

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT)
REVIEW PERIOD: December 30, 2021 – January 19, 2022
APPLICANT: Santa Susana GRF2, LLC
Attn: Colby Young
973 Lomas Santa Fe Drive
Solana Beach, CA 92075
CASE PLANNER: Claudia Pedroso, Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator

ENVIRONMENTAL
PLANNER: Naren Gunasekera, Associate Planner
PROJECT NO.: PD-S-2021-0005 / TP-S-2021-0001 / AHA-2021-0001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (PD-S-2021-0005), TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TP-S-2021-0001) AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT (AHA-2021-
0001) TO DEVELOP A FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE
PROJECT CONSISTING OF 280 APARTMENT UNITS
AND 4,750 SQUARE FEET OF NEW COMMERCIAL

SPACE WITHIN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER,

SUBDIVISION OF THE SITE INTO THREE PARCELS,
AND INCLUSION OF 14 AFFORDABLE HOUSING

UNITS, DEVELOPMENT CONCESSIONS, AND
DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS.

PROJECT LOCATION: 2196 Tapo Street
On the basis of the Initial Study for the project, it has been determined that the project would not have a potential for a significant effect on the environment. This document constitutes a Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the inclusion of the following measures into the project by the applicant:

I-1 During clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions must be controlled by regular watering or other dust-preventative measures using the following procedures as specified by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), including, without limitation, VCAPCD Rule 50 (Opacity), Rule 51 (Nuisance), and Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust):
i. On-site vehicle speed must not exceed 15 miles per hour (the Project site will contain posted signs with the speed limit).
ii. All on-site construction roads with vehicle traffic must be watered periodically.
612
P 16/12-21(sy) 3
iii. Streets adjacent to the Project site must be swept as needed to remove silt that may have accumulated from construction activities to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
iv. All material excavated or graded must be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering must occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day.
v. All clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation activities must cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 25 miles per hour averaged over 1 hour) to prevent excessive amounts of dust (contact the VCAPCD meteorologist for current information about average wind speeds). vi. All material transported off site must be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
vii. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations must be minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust. These control techniques must be indicated on Project grading plans. The Applicant and/or its contractor must be responsible for implementing these measures, and compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic site inspections by the City.

I-2 Project grading plans must show that for the duration of construction, ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment vehicles must be controlled by maintaining equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer’s specifications, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic inspections of construction equipment vehicles by the Public Works Department.

I-3 Construction equipment must be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology devices, including a California Air Resources Board–certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter or equivalent control device.

I-4 All trucks that will haul excavated or graded material on site must comply with California Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to subsections 23114(b)(2)(F), (e)(2), and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads.

I-5 The construction contractor must adhere to VCAPCD Rule 74.2 (Architectural Coatings) for limiting volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings. This rule specifies requirements for storage, clean up, and labeling of architectural coatings.

I-6 For all construction-related activities, noise-attenuation techniques must be employed as needed to ensure that noise remains as low as possible during construction. The following noise-attenuation techniques must be incorporated into contract specifications to reduce the impact of construction noise:
613
P 16/12-21(sy) 4
i. Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards and in good working condition.
ii. Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate constructionstaging areas away from sensitive uses, where feasible. iii. Schedule high noise-producing activities between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM to minimize disruption on sensitive uses.
iv. Implement noise attenuation measures, to the extent feasible, which may include, but are not limited to, temporary noise barriers or noise blankets around stationary construction noise sources.
v. Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible.
vi. All stationary construction equipment (e.g., air compressors, generators, impact wrenches, etc.) must be operated as far away from residential uses as possible and must be shielded with temporary sound barriers, sound aprons, or sound skins.
vii. Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, must be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes.

I-7 The Project Applicant shall retain a professional Native American monitor procured by the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (GTIOC) to observe all ground disturbance activities including, but not limited to, excavating, digging, trenching, plowing, drilling, tunneling, quarrying, grading, leveling, clearing, driving posts, auguring, blasting, stripping topsoil or similar activity, and archaeological work. If cultural resources are encountered, the Native American monitor will have the authority to request ground disturbing activities cease within 60 feet of discovery to assess and document potential finds in real time.

I-8 In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) must cease and a qualified archaeologist, meeting Secretary of Interior standards, must assess the find. Work on the portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. The Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI) must also be contacted (Contact Phone: (818) 837-0794; Email:
[email protected]) regarding any pre-contact and/or post-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes the initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.
614
615
P 16/12-21(sy) 6

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

PLANNING DIVISION

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

INITIAL STUDY

1. Project Title: PD-S-2021-0005/TP-S-2021-0001/
AHA-2021-0001 (Santa Susana Plaza)

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Rd.

Simi Valley, CA 93063

3. Contact Person and Phone Number/Email: Claudia Pedroso Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator
(805) 583-6875
[email protected]

4. Project Location: 2196 Tapo Street

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Santa Susana GRF2, LLC Attn: Colby Young
973 Lomas Santa Fe Drive
Solana Beach, CA 92075

6. Current General Plan Designation: Mixed-Use

7. Current Zoning: Commercial Planned Development with
Tapo Area Planning Overlay (TAPO), Mixed
Use Overlay Districts [CPD (TAPO) (MU)]

8. Description of Project:

The Applicant, Santa Susana GRF2. LLC, proposes to construct a four-story Mixed-Use development consisting of 280 apartment units, 4,750 square feet of commercial space, located at 2196 Tapo St. eliminating 59,801 square feet of the existing 147,587 square foot Santa Susana Shopping Center which will be partially re-developed for the project.

The re-developed area will be located at the north portion of the existing shopping center, just south of the Taco Bell restaurant and Shell gas station.

The apartment complex consists of the following unit breakdowns:
165 one-bedroom units
63 two-bedroom units
42 studios
10 live-work units

Fourteen units (5%) will be set aside as affordable units for the very-low income qualified renters.

The project will include amenities for the residents such as gym, pool, roof terrace, common areas, and a private park that is open to the public.

The request includes a parcel map to subdivide the subject property into three parcels.

Parcel 1 will be 0.69 acres, Parcel 2 will be 5.33 acres, and Parcel 3 will be 8.55 acres. 616
P 16/12-21(sy) 7
Affordable Housing
The Applicant is providing 14 affordable housing units for the very-low income qualified renters (5%). Per California Government Code, Section 65915, this qualifies the project for modified parking requirements, one incentive, and multiple waivers as long as the waivers do not impose a life or safety hazard.

The Applicant has requested an incentive to allow four stories instead of three stories and proposes to mitigate the additional story by providing additional building setbacks for the third and fourth story (Figures 2 and 3). Waivers include reduced rear setback, reduced number of bike storage, reduced required storage for the apartment units, reduced parking stall dimensions, and reduced outdoor private open space for some of the units.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The site consists of 14.57 acres and is generally flat with infrastructure in place. The site is currently developed and contains the Santa Susana Plaza/Town Center Site which was constructed in 1967.

North of the site is a service station with a car wash with a drive-through restaurant and Cochran Street beyond. To the south, there is a commercial center with Alpine Street beyond that. To the west is Tapo Street with a commercial center and a drive-through restaurant beyond. Duplex residential units are located to the east.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

None

11. Date Deemed Complete/Ready to Process: November 3, 2021

12. A site inspection was performed on:

Date: 12/10/2021 By: Naren Gunasekera, Associate Planner 617
8 13. Are any of the following studies required? ("Yes" or "No" response required) Yes Traffic Study
Yes Noise Study
Yes Geotechnical Study
Yes Hydrology Study
Yes Tree Study and Appraisal (pursuant to SVMC Section 9-38 et seq.) No Biological Study
No Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Survey
No Wetlands Delineation Study
Yes Archaeological/Cultural Resource Study
No Historical Study
Yes Other (List): Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study/Sewer Capacity Report_

14. Location Map

618
P 16/12-21(sy) 9

15. Aerial Photograph

619
P 16/12-21(sy) 10

16. Site Plan
620
621
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 12
Issues and Supporting Sources:

I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The environmental planner conducted a site visit to evaluate the project’s impact on the site, surrounding land uses, scenic vistas, scenic resources, and the existing visual character. The site is flat, previously graded, and contains the Santa Susana Shopping Center, a 147,587 square foot commercial building. Based on a review of the site plan for the project, a four-story Mixed-Use development consisting of 280 apartment units, 4,750 square feet of commercial space will be constructed on the north portion of the existing shopping center. In addition, the project site is located on the valley floor, surrounded by urban uses, and the area is previously graded. Therefore, the project would not obstruct any scenic vistas or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, and there is a less than significant impact on the environment from an adverse impact to scenic resources or the visual character of the site and its surroundings. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Based on the site visit by the environmental planner, there are no rock outcroppings, or scenic resources, in the proposed project area. According to the Cultural Resources Report prepared for the project (Ref. #35), there are no historic buildings on the site.

Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from an impact on trees or rock outcroppings.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The project is within an urbanized area and is subject to the City’s Design Guidelines and tree protection ordinance to ensure the visual character of the site and public views of the site and its surroundings will be maintained to a high standard. Mature trees will be removed to construct the project; however, specimen-size replacement trees will be planted with the project landscaping. The project will need to comply with the City’s Design Guidelines for conceptual approval and the site’s landscaping will need to meet the City’s Landscape Design Guidelines. As such the project would not conflict with any applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
622
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 13
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The project would create a new source of light from the apartment complex. For any new lighting installed, the applicant is required to submit an exterior lighting (photometric) plan pursuant to Simi Valley Municipal Code Section 9-30.040.C.1. (Ref. #1). This plan shall consist of a point-by-point foot-candle layout extending a minimum of 20 feet outside the property lines. The plan must achieve the goals established in this subsection in order to eliminate illumination or glare from the project onto adjacent properties, freeway, or streets.

Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from a new source of substantial light or glare.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
(a-e) The project site is located in an urbanized area of the city. According to the California Department of Conservation, the project site and surrounding area is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land and, therefore, is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. The nearest land under a Williamson Act contract is located approximately four miles north of the project site. The project site and surrounding area are not used nor zoned for agricultural, forest, or timberland use. Construction of the project would occur within and adjacent to a fully urbanized area and would not result in the conversion of farmland, forest land, or timberland uses to non-agricultural or non-forest uses. Furthermore, the project would not conflict with agricultural, forest land, or timberland zoning. Therefore, no impacts would occur to the environment from the loss of agricultural and forestry resources. 623
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 14
III. AIR QUALITY:

The significance criteria, established by the City or the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (a-c) The “Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines” (Ref. #3) prepared and released by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), is an advisory document that provides a framework for preparing air quality evaluations for environmental documents required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Within the Guidelines, Section 3.3 Recommended Significance Criteria, provides thresholds for determining the significance of air quality impacts.

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) (Volatile Organic Compounds) and NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) are emitted by mobile and stationary sources associated with projects. When exposed to sunlight, the photochemical reaction results in formation of air pollution, including ozone.

Based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) CalEEmod air quality analysis program and the Air Quality study provided by the Applicant (Ref. #36), the project would generate 24 pounds per day of ROG and 17 pounds per day of NOx. These quantities do not exceed the threshold of 25 pounds per day of ROG or NOx. In addition to project specific thresholds, Section 3.3.1 provides the following criteria for determining the significance of cumulative air quality impacts: “A project with emissions of two pounds per day or greater of ROG, or two pounds per day of NOx that is found to be inconsistent with the Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan (VCAQMP) will have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact.” (Ref. #3, Pg. 3-3). Since the project exceeds two pounds per day of ROG and NOx, a determination of the project’s consistency with the VCAQMP is required. If the project is consistent with the VCAQMP, it does not have a cumulative air quality impact. According to Chapter 4 of the Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, a project is consistent with the VCAQMP if the population increase created by the project, plus the current population, does not exceed the VCAQMP forecasted population (Ref. #3, Pg. 4-2 & 4-5, Sec. 4.2.3.1). Based on the City of Simi Valley Residential Building Permit Finals monthly report, the Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) factor of 2.2 persons per apartment dwelling unit, the project would result in a population increase of 616 people.

The VCAQMP considers regional population forecasts developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG’s most recent population forecast was adopted in September 2020 as part of the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. The 2020 SCAG growth forecast projects a population in Simi Valley of 137,000 people for 2045. The population increase (616) that 624
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 15
could result from the project, in addition to the existing population of 127,100, is within the most recent growth projections of SCAG for the City of Simi Valley. As such, the growth forecast is also within the population growth parameters considered in the VCAQMP, which is updated by the VCAPCD to manage air emissions in the County of Ventura in accordance with local, state, and federal standards. Development of the Project will not obstruct implementation of the VCAQMP or attainment of state or federal air quality standards.

Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from an impact on air quality and there is no conflict with the Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan.

d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
VCAPCD considers a sensitive receptor to be a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant. Sensitive receptors are identified near sources of air pollution to determine the potential for health hazards.

Locations evaluated for exposure to air pollution include, but are not limited to, residences, schools, hospitals, and convalescent facilities.

The project is bordered by commercial and residential uses, including commercial uses to the north along Cochran Street, commercial uses to the south along Tapo Street and Alpine Street, residential uses to the east along Workman Avenue and Bidwell Street, and commercial and retail uses to the west across Tapo Street. The nearest sensitive receptors who may be impacted by emissions of air pollutants due to the Project include the residential uses immediately to the east of the project and to the south west.

During long-term operations, toxic air contaminants could be emitted as part of periodic maintenance operations, cleaning, painting, etc., and from delivery trucks and service vehicles. However, these uses are expected to be occasional and result in minimal exposure to off-site sensitive receptors. Given that the project consists primarily of housing with limited amounts of commercial and retail use, the project would not include sources of substantive toxic air contaminants emissions identified by the VCAPCD- or CARB-siting recommendations.

Construction of the project is the most likely to have potential impacts on sensitive receptors. Construction is expected to take close to a year, with heavy equipment such as excavators, graders, cranes, forklifts, etc. being used. Construction of the project would generate temporary air pollutant emissions. These impacts are associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy duty construction vehicles and soil hauling trucks, in addition to ROG that would be released during the drying phase upon application of architectural coatings.

Project construction would also result in short-term emission of diesel particulate, which is a toxic air contaminant. Given the proximity of residential uses, it is possible that the project could contribute to cumulative health impacts from toxic air contaminants. Therefore, it is conservatively considered that the project would have a potentially significant impact and mitigation is identified below.

The VCAPCD’s 25 pounds per day thresholds mentioned previously for ROG and NOx are not intended to be applied to construction emissions since such emissions are temporary.

Nevertheless, for construction impacts, the VCAPCD recommends minimizing fugitive dust through dust control measures. Fugitive dust control measures are required by VCAPCD 625
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 16
Rule 55 which includes fugitive dust reduction measures such as securing tarps over truck loads and watering to treat bulk material to minimize fugitive dust. For architectural coating VCAPCD requires limits on Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) content, under Rule 74.2 for specific coating categories. Compliance with Rule 55 and Rule 74.2 would ensure that construction emissions would not be generated in such quantities as to cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person or the public. In addition, the mitigation measures with regard to dust control, and reducing diesel particulate, as described before have been incorporated into the project.

AQ-1: During clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions must be controlled by regular watering or other dust-preventative measures using the following procedures as specified by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), including, without limitation, VCAPCD Rule 50 (Opacity), Rule 51 (Nuisance), and Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust):

On-site vehicle speed must not exceed 15 miles per hour (the Project site will contain posted signs with the speed limit).

All on-site construction roads with vehicle traffic must be watered periodically.

Streets adjacent to the Project site must be swept as needed to remove silt that may have accumulated from construction activities to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

All material excavated or graded must be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering must occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day.

All clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation activities must cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 25 miles per hour averaged over 1 hour) to prevent excessive amounts of dust (contact the VCAPCD meteorologist for current information about average wind speeds).

All material transported off site must be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations must be minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust. These control techniques must be indicated on Project grading plans. The Applicant and/or its contractor must be responsible for implementing these measures, and compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic site inspections by the City.

AQ-2: Project grading plans must show that for the duration of construction, ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment vehicles must be controlled by maintaining equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer’s specifications, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic inspections of construction equipment vehicles by the Public Works Department.

AQ-3: Construction equipment must be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology devices, including a California Air Resources Board–certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter or equivalent control device.
626
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 17
AQ-4: All trucks that will haul excavated or graded material on site must comply with California Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to subsections 23114 (b)(2)(F), (e)(2), and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads.

AQ-5: The construction contractor must adhere to VCAPCD Rule 74.2 (Architectural Coatings) for limiting volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings. This rule specifies requirements for storage, clean up, and labeling of architectural coatings.

As such, the project will not result in other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (a-f) Based on a site visit by the environmental planner, the property is within a developed area of the City, on a previously graded developed site. There is no native habitat and no sensitive plant or endangered wildlife species on the project site. There are no aquatic resources that would be regulated by any state or federal agencies. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from an impact on biological resources.

According to the tree report prepared for the project (Ref. #37), the project site contains 27 mature trees, 11 of which would be removed for site improvements. The trees to be removed consist of five magnolia, four Australian willows, one tree of heaven and one diamond leaf pittosporum. The project will be required to provide replacement trees with a 627
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 18
value equal to that of the removed trees. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.

Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from adverse effects on biological resources.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
(a-b) The Cultural Resource Study (Ref. #35) confirmed that the subject property is not listed in the Ventura County Historical Landmarks and Points of Interest (Ref. #7). It was also determined that the site did not contain any archaeological resources. Although not previously graded, the site shows evidence of moderate ground disturbance such as vegetation clearing, that would likely have compromised any potential archaeological resources. (However, please refer to Section XVIII. for discussion of Tribal Cultural Resources). Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from a substantial adverse change to historical resources, archaeological resources. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code mandates procedures to be followed when human remains are discovered. This code requirement is implemented for all projects in the City. Therefore, there would be a less than significant no potential for a significant impact to the environment from a disturbance of human remains.

VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

(a-b) As part of the General Plan update, the City has adopted a Climate Action Plan (SVCAP) that identifies energy reduction measures, including a requirement that new development exceed 2008 Title 24 Part 6 Energy Standards by 20 percent, as well as water use reduction measures to reduce water demand by 20 percent. The project will be required to comply with a number of ordinances that implement the goals of the SV-CAP. (Refer to further discussion under Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section VIII. of this document.)
628
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 19
Simi Valley has adopted an Energy Reach Code, which established energy efficiency performance standards that reach higher than those required by Title 24 minimums. The main focus is on efficiency measures that are simple to achieve and enforce, and have the greatest influence on community sustainability. The Reach Code increases energy efficiency requirements for residential and nonresidential structures beyond Title 24, set at 10 and 15 percent respectively for new construction and substantial remodels. Chapter 9-39 of the City of Simi Valley Development Code promotes trip reduction and alternative transportation methods (e.g., carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles, walking, parkand-ride lots, improvement in the balance between jobs and housing), flexible work hours, telecommuting, and parking management programs to address traffic increases from new development. The Water Conservation Program Ordinance (Ordinance 1142) will reduce water consumption within the City of Simi Valley through conservation, effective water supply planning, prevention of waste, and will maximize the efficient use of water within the City of Simi Valley. The Water Conservation Ordinance is designed to reduce water use in the City to at least 15 percent below the 2009 baseline. The City is an early adopter of the CALGreen Building Code, which is intended to improve sustainability of the built environment and reduce GHG emissions from new construction. The City’s adopted Ordinance 1167 goes further by including a California Energy Commission (CEC)- approved energy reach code, additional landscape water conservation, and increased recycling.

Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact with respect to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

According to the preliminary geotechnical report for the project (Ref. #38), and based on the State of California Earthquake Fault Zones Map (Ref. #9), the property is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault zone and no known active faults run through the property. Since there are no known active faults on the property, the proposal would not be impacted by surface rupture. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from direct impact of surface rupture from a known earthquake fault or substantial evidence of a known fault.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
According to the preliminary geotechnical report for the project (Ref. #38), the subject site is located in an area subject to strong ground-shaking from earthquakes. The report states that the site is suitable for the proposed construction, provided that the geotechnical engineering recommendations included in the report are implemented.

Those recommendations will need to be implemented in order for the Department of 629
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 20
Public Works to finalize the grading permit for the project. In addition, the California Building Code prescribes procedures for earthquake resistant design which include considerations for seismic zoning. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from strong seismic ground shaking.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

The site is not located in an area designated as potentially liquefiable on the Seismic Hazard Zones Map (Ref. #10) of the Simi Valley East Quadrangle. In addition, groundwater was not encountered in any of the exploratory borings up to depths of 51.5 feet. As discussed in the preliminary geotechnical report for the project (Ref. #38), liquefaction is not considered a hazard at this site. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from seismic-related ground failure. iv) Landslides?

Based on the site inspection, the site is not near slopes and landslides do not pose a significant risk to the site. In addition, the property is not identified as an area subject to landslides on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map (Ref. #10). As discussed in the preliminary geotechnical report for the project (Ref. #38), landslides are not considered a hazard at this site. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The project consists of the redevelopment of an existing site with driveways, parking areas, buildings and landscaped areas. The property owners will be required to maintain the landscape for the lifetime of the project. This will lower the amount of exposed soil that could be eroded. In addition, the project is required to adhere to Section 9-64.030.c (Grading & Erosion Control) of the Simi Valley Municipal Code. The purpose of this code is to prevent siltation, protect off-site property, and prevent soil loss during grading.

Therefore, there is a less than significant impact on the environment from substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (c-d) The geotechnical site evaluation of the property (Ref. #38) evaluated the suitability of the site soils for the proposed construction. The report recommends removal and recompaction of soil a minimum of seven feet below grade for the structures and a minimum of five feet below the bottom of all foundations. With the implementation of these recommendations and others in the geotechnical site evaluation, the site will not pose a significant risk to the proposed structures. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from liquefaction, lateral spreading, or settlement. 630
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 21
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The proposed project will connect to the existing sewer system and is not proposing the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The site is underlain by younger alluvial materials, which have a low potential for containing paleontological deposits (Ref. #6). Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from the direct or indirect destruction or a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature.

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
(a-b) The City of Simi Valley relies upon the expert guidance of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) regarding the methodology and thresholds of significance for the evaluation of air quality impacts within Ventura County. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are air pollutants that are subject to local control by the VCAPCD.

As such, the City looks to the VCAPCD for guidance in the evaluation of GHG impacts. In September 2011, the Ventura County Air Pollution Control Board requested that VCAPCD staff report back on possible GHG significance thresholds for evaluating GHG impacts of land use projects in Ventura County under CEQA. VCAPCD staff responded to this request by preparing a report entitled Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance Options for Land Use Development Projects in Ventura County. This report presents a number of options for GHG significance thresholds and summarizes the most prominent approaches and options either adopted or being considered by all other air districts throughout California.

Similar to other air districts, VCAPCD staff members are considering a tiered approach with the main components involving consistency with a locally adopted GHG reduction plan followed by a bright-line threshold for land use projects that would capture 90 percent of project GHG emissions. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is also considering these strategies for land use projects. The most recent proposal issued by the SCAQMD in September 2010 included a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year for all non-industrial projects.

For the purpose of evaluating the GHG impacts associated with the project, a threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year was used for plan level analyses. This threshold was used since it was developed based on the goal of AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As outlined in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study for the project 631
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 22
(Ref. #36) the annual net GHG emissions associated with the construction of the project is 22 MTCO2e/year, and the net GHG emissions for project operation is 1,189 MTCO2e/year.

Combined, these emissions total to less than the SCAQMD screening threshold for nonindustrial projects of 3,000 MTCO2e/year.

As part of the General Plan update, the City has adopted a Climate Action Plan (SV-CAP) that includes a baseline GHG emissions inventory, a methodology for tracking and reporting emissions in the future, and recommendations for GHG reduction strategies as a foundation for these efforts. The SV-CAP focuses on the various goals and policies of the General Plan relative to greenhouse gas emissions. The SV-CAP is designed to ensure that the impact of future development on air quality and energy resources is minimized and that land use decisions made by the City and internal operations within the City are consistent with adopted state legislation. The SV-CAP identifies energy reduction measures, including a requirement that new development exceed 2008 Title 24 Part 6 Energy Standards by 20 percent, and water use reduction measures to reduce water demand by 20 percent. The project will be required to comply with a number of ordinances that implement the goals of the SV-CAP. Simi Valley has adopted an Energy Reach Code, which adopts energy efficiency performance standards that reach higher than is required by Title 24 minimums.

The main focus is on efficiency measures that are simple to achieve and enforce, and have the greatest influence on community sustainability. The Reach Code increases energy efficiency requirements for residential and nonresidential structures beyond Title 24, set at 10 and 15 percent respectively for new construction and substantial remodels. Chapter 9- 39 of the City of Simi Valley Development Code promotes trip reduction and alternative transportation methods (e.g., carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles, walking, park-andride lots, improvement in the balance between jobs and housing), flexible work hours, telecommuting, and parking management programs to address traffic increases from new development. The Water Conservation Program Ordinance (Ordinance 1142) will reduce water consumption within the City of Simi Valley through conservation, effective water supply planning, prevention of waste, and will maximize the efficient use of water within the City of Simi Valley. The Water Conservation Ordinance is designed to reduce water use in the City to at least 15 percent below the 2009 baseline. The City is an early adopter of the CALGreen Building Code, which is intended to improve sustainability of the built environment and reduce GHG emissions from new construction. The City’s adopting Ordinance 1167 goes further by including a CEC-approved energy reach code, additional landscape water conservation, and increased recycling. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact for Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 632
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 23
(a-c) The storage, handling, or use of any hazardous materials is regulated by state and local regulations. The California Building Code regulates the types and amounts of hazardous substances allowed in conventional structures (Ref. #11). Storage of any amount of hazardous materials within commercial spaces is subject to the Fire District and Ventura County regulations. These regulations limit the amount of hazardous materials that can be stored in these facilities in order to ensure public safety is protected. In addition, the residential uses do not transport, store, or use significant amounts of hazardous materials. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from the routine transport, use, disposal or release of hazardous materials. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The project site is not listed on the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database (Ref. #17). Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from a hazardous material.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The closest airport is the Van Nuys Airport, located approximately 15 miles southeast of the project site. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within two miles of a public or private airport. Therefore, there would be no impact for the project related to safety hazards or excessive noise from airport related uses. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project is a request to develop a four-story Mixed-Use development consisting of 280 apartment units and 4,750 square feet of commercial space on 5.33 acres of a 14.57-acre site within the urban boundary of the City, which is surrounded by other urban land uses.

There is direct access to the site from both Tapo and Cochran Street for emergency response organizations and the property is already included in the City’s emergency response and evacuation plan. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The project site is not identified as a potential wildfire hazard area as shown on the Fire Hazard map in the City of Simi Valley General Plan (Ref. #13: City of Simi Valley, General Plan, Figure S-2, Pg. 8-9). Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from exposure of people or structures to wildland fires. 633
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 24
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
The project would be connected to the existing sewer system and any wastewater would be collected and processed at the City’s sanitation plant. Under the conditions of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Ref. #21), development over one acre in size is required to install permanent filtration devices to clean runoff leaving the site. As outlined in the Preliminary Drainage Report for the project (Ref. #39), a new storm drain system will be constructed that incorporates a Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS) unit for pretreatment. The project will meet the requirements of the latest Stormwater Quality Urban Mitigation Plan (SQUIMP) by installation of Stormwater filtration units meeting the Stormwater Quality Design Flow established by Ventura County. In addition, the standing water within excavation will be handled pursuant to State requirements governing the handling of such construction related groundwater. Based on these conditions, water discharged from site would not violate any water quality standards.

Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from violating any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The project would receive its domestic water supply from the existing distribution system.

There is no proposal to use a well or groundwater from the site. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from depleting groundwater supplies or interfering substantially with groundwater recharge.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? The property is surrounded by existing improvements. According to the Preliminary Drainage Report for the project (Ref. #39), a new storm drain system will be constructed to collect stormwater within the project area. This storm drain will be placed along the perimeter of the building and collect roof water runoff as well as courtyard runoff. The collection system will go through a low flow diversion structure, which will take the required treatment flows to a CDS unit for pretreatment and then into an underground infiltration chamber. The proposed infiltration chamber will be a series of perforated Corrugated Metal pipes. The discharge for high flows and any overflows from the Chamber will be a new connection to the existing 48” Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) in Tapo Street. High flows will be routed through a diversion structure into onsite underground detention facility. The area north of the project will be collected into a new inlet and directed to the existing 48” RCP separate from the project area flows. The area south of the project will remain unchanged and the existing connection into the 48” RCP at the southwest corner of the site will remain as is.
634
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 25
The on-site detention will comply with both the City of Simi Valley and Ventura County Watershed Protection District requirements and reduce the post development discharge to be equal to or less than the existing condition discharge. All stormwater flows will be detained before leaving the site. Since on-site drainage will be directed to the underground infiltration chamber, and there would be very little exposed soil after construction, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or siltation.

Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off site?
According to the Preliminary Drainage Report for the project (Ref. #39), there will be no net increase of runoff rates from pre- to post-development conditions. In addition, the project will provide an underground infiltration chamber on the site. The on-site detention will comply with both the City of Simi Valley and Ventura County Watershed Protection District requirements and reduce the post development discharge to be equal to or less than the existing condition discharge. All stormwater flows will be detained before leaving the site. Since on-site drainage will be directed to an on-site detention system, the project will substantially contain flood flow over current undeveloped conditions. All proposed design storm peak discharges for the site will be equal to the 10-year pre-project peak flow rates. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
The State NPDES MS4 permit requires all new development to treat the “first flush” of all storms. The Preliminary Drainage Report for the project (Ref. #39) submitted for this project has calculated the stormwater volume that must be treated. Captured storm flows will be pretreated prior to the water leaving the site. The project area will be collected through local inlets and storm drains. The storm drain will pass through a low flow diversion structure that will pass 8% of the Q50 flow rate for the tributary area. This flow rate will pass through a CDS unit, and then into an underground infiltration chamber. Flows over this rate up to the 10-year undeveloped flow (Q10) will bypass into a secondary storm drain and directly tie into the 48” RCP in Tapo Street. Flows greater than the Q10 will be directed to an on-site detention system with an overflow tie to the 48” RCP in Tapo Street. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact on the environment from exceeding the capacity of exceeding stormwater drainage systems or an increase in polluted runoff.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
According to the Preliminary Drainage Report for the project (Ref. #39), the site will drain to an onsite underground detention facility. The on-site detention will comply with both the City of Simi Valley and Ventura County Watershed Protection District requirements and reduce the post development discharge to be equal to or less than the existing condition discharge. All storm water flows will be detained before leaving the site. Since on-site drainage will be directed to an on-site detention system, the 635
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 26
project will substantially contain flood flow over current undeveloped conditions.

Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from impeding or redirecting flood flows.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
This site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area AO Depth 1’ according to Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 06111C0864E effective 1/29/2021. However, according to the Preliminary Drainage Report for the project (Ref. #39), the flood plain limit is not within the project area. The project site is not located near a large body of water that would produce seiches (seismically induced waves) nor is the site located in a tsunami inundation area. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from a release of pollutants due to project inundation.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The City requires projects to provide a minimum of 1,100 cubic feet of detention per acre of developed area. According to the Preliminary Drainage Report for the project (Ref. #39), the project will provide on-site detention that exceed the City’s requirements of 1,100 cf/acre. In addition, under the conditions of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, development over one acre in size is required to install permanent filtration devices to clean runoff leaving the site. The project will meet the requirements of the latest Stormwater Quality Urban Mitigation Plan (SQUIMP) by installation of Stormwater filtration units meeting the Stormwater Quality Design Flow established by Ventura County. In addition, the standing water within excavation will be handled pursuant to State requirements governing the handling of such construction related groundwater. Based on these conditions, water discharged from site would not violate any water quality standards. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from conflicts with or obstruction of water quality control or groundwater management plans.

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
The project is surrounded by commercial uses on all sides, except on the east, where there are residential uses. As such it will not physically divide an established community. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Based on a review of the current General Plan, it has been determined that the project is consistent with goals, policies, and implementation measures adopted for avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project complies with all thresholds related to biological resources, stormwater runoff, air quality, noise, and traffic generation. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact on the environment.

636
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 27
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (a-b) Based on the geotechnical Site Investigation, the subsurface soil conditions encountered in the project site during the field exploration consisted mainly of young alluvial soils. According to the Geology and Mineral Resources Study of Southern Ventura County, California, by the California Division of Mines and Geology, there are no known mineral resources of value to the region in alluvium aside from sand and gravel for concrete aggregate and there are no mineral resources in the engineered fill (Ref. #24, Pgs. 27 & 28).

The project is located outside the area delineated as the Simi Oil Field on the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, District 2 Oil Field Map (Ref. #25).

There are no oil or gas wells located on the property according to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, Regional Wildcat Map, W2-1 (Ref. #26) (https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/oilgas/). Locally important mineral resources have been mapped by the State and included in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element. The project is located outside the area identified as a natural resource area on the Land Use Map for the City’s General Plan. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from the loss of availability of a regionally, statewide, or locally important mineral resource.

XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
The project site is located adjacent to residences, considered noise sensitive per the City’s General Plan, to the east. The General Plan establishes noise standards for noise sensitive land uses of 45 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) (a timeweighted 24-hour average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel) for interior, and 63 dBA CNEL for private outdoor living areas. One source for a potential increase in ambient noise levels is project-generated traffic. In general, a 3 dBA change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1-2 dBA changes generally are not perceived. Since noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, the project would need to produce twice the current amount of traffic on surrounding streets (a 100 percent increase) in order to increase noise energy by 3 dBA. The trip generation study prepared for the project (Ref. #40) estimated a net increase of 296 average daily trips, which would not double the current traffic volumes in the area. The additional trips would increase traffic noise by less than 1 dBA, which would not be a noticeable change at existing noise sensitive receptors. 637
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 28
The City has a threshold for exterior noise in the private outdoor living areas of residences of 63 dBA CNEL and 45 dBA CNEL for interior. In addition, changes in ambient noise levels of 10 decibels or more are considered significant. The Noise Study prepared for the project (Ref. #43) demonstrates that the operational noise level at the residences immediately east of the existing wall would be in the range of 40-45 dBA, which is below the threshold value. The project would not create a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity 10 dBA above the existing levels.

Though there could be temporary increases in ambient noise levels associated with project construction activities in excess of established General Plan maximums, the Municipal Code Section 5-16.02(i) allows for noise resulting from construction activities to not be considered a nuisance if it occurs between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM.

Additionally, Section 5-16.02(h) prevents loud or unusual noise sources, such as pile drivers, from operating between 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and Goal N-3 of the City’s General Plan would ensure that impacts associated with construction-related noise would be minimized and only occur during the approved hours for construction activity. In addition, the below mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project.

N-1: For all construction-related activities, noise-attenuation techniques must be employed as needed to ensure that noise remains as low as possible during construction. The following noise-attenuation techniques must be incorporated into contract specifications to reduce the impact of construction noise:

Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards and in good working condition.

Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction-staging areas away from sensitive uses, where feasible.

Schedule high noise-producing activities between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM to minimize disruption on sensitive uses.

Implement noise attenuation measures, to the extent feasible, which may include, but are not limited to, temporary noise barriers or noise blankets around stationary construction noise sources.

Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible.

All stationary construction equipment (e.g., air compressors, generators, impact wrenches, etc.) must be operated as far away from residential uses as possible and must be shielded with temporary sound barriers, sound aprons, or sound skins.

Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, must be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes.

Clearly post construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent at all construction entrances to allow for surrounding owners to contact the job superintendent. If the City or the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent must investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party. 638
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 29
b) Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? The City of Simi Valley has not adopted vibration guidelines or standards, either as part of the General Plan or Simi Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Estimated ground-borne vibration levels are based upon noise levels reported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Construction Noise Handbook (2006), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006), and the distance to nearby sensitive receptors. Vibration thresholds have been established by the FTA for disturbance of people at 72 VdB (Vibration decibels) for residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This threshold applies to “frequent events”, which the FTA defines as vibration events occurring more than 70 times per day. The thresholds for frequent events are considered appropriate because of the scale and duration of proposed construction activity.

Construction activity associated with the project would create temporary ground-borne vibration on and adjacent to the project site from various types of construction equipment.

The Noise Study prepared for the project (Ref. #43) demonstrates that the forecasted vibration levels due to on-site construction activities would range from a low of 13 VdB to a high of 79 VdB and would not exceed human annoyance significance threshold of 80 VdB. In the event vibratory rollers are to be used during construction, limiting the distance to 80 feet from the adjacent receptor would reduce the potential impacts to human annoyance and would result in vibration levels below the significance threshold of 80 VdB.

The forecasted vibration levels due to on-site construction activities would not exceed the building damage significance threshold at the nearby sensitive receptors for vibratory rollers, large bulldozers, caisson drilling, loaded trucks, jackhammers, and small bulldozers. As such, construction vibration impacts to building damage would not be considered significant. Additionally, construction activity would only occur during daytime hours in compliance with SVMC Section 5-16.02, which would avoid sleep disruption. The mitigation measures described in the previous section will also contribute towards reducing ground-borne vibration and noise levels. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from the generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The closest airport is the Van Nuys Airport, located approximately 15 miles southeast of the project site. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within two miles of a public or private airport. Therefore, there would be no impact for the project related to safety hazards or excessive noise from airport related uses. 639
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 30
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The proposal is located in an urban area of the City. There is no need for additional public roads, utilities, or other public infrastructure to the project site. The project would not add any new public infrastructure but would result in the addition of 616 individuals to the population. This increase is not considered substantial population growth. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from substantial population growth in the area.
b) Displace substantial numbers of people or existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Based on the site visit, there are no dwelling units located on the property. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from the displacement of any existing dwelling units.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire Protection?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
The property is located 2.0 miles from Ventura County Fire Protection District Station Number 41, located at 5874 East Los Angeles Avenue. Due to the existing streets, short distance, and level topography from the station to the site, the fire district can meet their standard response time of arriving in five minutes by traveling 30 miles per hour.

The Police Department has established acceptable standards for Patrol Officer response times to calls for service in the city. The acceptable response times to emergency calls average 3.2 minutes, non-emergency response times average 12 minutes. The Police Department tracks response times and is meeting these standards, based on the Department’s latest statistics. To maintain these response times to the public, the Police Chief may reconfigure police beat boundaries, adjust deployment schedules for patrol shifts, or request funding for the creation of special task forces to deal with any increase in calls for service due to the proposed project. Therefore, there is no potential for a substantial impact associated with new facilities or personnel related to police services. 640
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 31
The project is subject to school impact fees in order to offset impacts to the Simi Valley Unified School District’s requirements. Pursuant to State law, the payment of those impact fees would constitute full mitigation of any impacts on schools [Government Code Section 65996 (b)].

The Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District reviewed the project. They determined that existing parks and recreational facilities have sufficient capacity to accommodate demand.

Currently there are approximately 1,057 acres of developed parkland and public open space in Simi Valley. This is approximately 8.31 acres of parkland for every thousand people in the Simi Valley Growth Area (1,057 / 127,070 x 1,000). This ratio complies with the standard of five acres per 1,000 people established in the Simi Valley Municipal Code Section 9-68.050. The project will be required to pay Park Land Dedication/In-Lieu fees to the Park District prior to the final map being recorded.

The need for public facilities is based on the demand generated by the population. The proposed apartments would house approximately 616 people. This is not considered a substantial population increase. Since the project would not result in a significant population increase, there would be a less than significant impact on public services or facilities including, fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or recreational facilities.

Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services.

XVI. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (a-b) Based on the answer to question XIII (Parks), existing park facilities would be able to accommodate the modest increase in park use generated by this project. No new community recreational facilities or expansion of existing community facilities are proposed as a result of this project. Additionally, the project will be required to Park Land Dedication/In-Lieu fees prior to the Final Map being recorded. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from an impact on recreation.

XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? 641
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 32
The project has been reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering Division and it has been determined that the project would not affect any public transit or bicycle facilities.

Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact to the environment from a conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs addressing the circulation system. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Beginning July 1, 2020, CEQA analysis for determining potential significant transportation impacts from vehicles transitioned from an automobile delay or capacity measure to a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric in evaluating a project’s environmental impacts under CEQA as required by Senate Bill (SB) 743. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 establishes VMT as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, shifting away from the analysis of a project’s effect on level of service on nearby roadways and at intersections.

The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory identified project conditions to be reviewed at the CEQA Checklist stage to determine if a project can be presumed to have a less than significant CEQA transportation impact or if further analysis is required. CEQA Lead Agencies, such as the City, would have discretion to approve a project applicant’s conditions for a presumption of less than significant transportation impacts.

The City’s screening criteria to determine if projects may be exempt from a VMT Analysis include the following:

Projects that generate less than 110 trips per day (net) as calculated using Trip Generation
Standalone retail projects less than 50,000 square feet in gross floor area located within neighborhoods
Community-serving projects such as parks, libraries, or other projects deemed by the City Engineer to have a less than significant impact
Projects with 100% affordable residential units
Projects located within 0.5 miles of the Simi Valley Metrolink Station Projects located within mapped areas of 5% below the City’s background VMT as determined by the City Transportation Analysis Model
City Staff prepared a VMT analysis for the Santa Susanna Plaza redevelopment project, consisting of 280 multi-family units and 4,750 square feet of retail space, located on Tapo Street south of Cochran Street. To conduct the analysis, Staff utilized the City of Simi Valley Transportation Analysis Model (SVTAM). The peak modeled VMT for the project was 15.8 VMT/capita for home-based trips. This is below the City’s Threshold of 5% below background VMT of 16.15 VMT/capita, for home-based trips. The peak modeled VMT for the project was 8.0 VMT/capita for work-based trips. This is below the City’s Threshold of 5% below background VMT of 10.35 VMT/employee, for work-based trips. As such, there are no project-specific impacts and no mitigation measures required.

Therefore, the project’s potential impacts on the environment related to a conflict or inconsistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) would be less than significant.
642
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 33
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? SVMC Section 9-34.090 has specific design requirements for new access drives. These include minimum standards for width, grade, angle, surface, and clearance. The City of Simi Valley Department of Public Works, Department of Environmental Services, and the Ventura County Fire Protection District have reviewed the project and determined that those standards would be satisfied. Compliance with those design standards protects against the possibility of creating a substantial hazard due to a design feature. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Access to the project site would be provided via one driveway on Cochran Street and one driveway on Tapo Street. The City’s Traffic Engineering Division has determined the access design complies with SVMC Section 9-34.090, which ensures adequate and safe access onto a public right-of-way. The Ventura County Fire Protection District has also reviewed the project and determined that their standards would be satisfied. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from inadequate emergency access.

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
(a-b) Although not previously graded, the site shows evidence of moderate ground disturbance such as vegetation clearing that would likely have compromised any potential tribal cultural resources. The Cultural Resource Study (Ref. #35) prepared for the study included consultation with Native American tribal groups. The Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California advised that the property is less than one mile from the Arroyo Simi which was a thoroughfare route that was used for 7,000 years and considered a sacred site. It was recommended that any ground disturbance for the project be monitored by a Native American. The Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians stated the site may 643
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 34
be fairly sensitive for cultural resources and recommended archaeological and Native American monitoring for ground disturbance activities.

To comply with state law AB52, the City invited local interested tribes to consult on the project. The Fernandeño Tatavium Tribe of Mission Indians (FTBMI) found the project area to be sensitive for Tribal Cultural Resources, and provided recommendations that would protect potential resources discovered. Therefore, the applicant has incorporated the following mitigation measures into the project that incorporate the measures recommended by both tribes:

TCR1: The Project Applicant shall retain a professional Native American monitor procured by the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (GTIOC) to observe all ground disturbance activities. If cultural resources are encountered, the Native American monitor will have the authority to request ground disturbing activities cease within 60 feet of discovery to assess and document potential finds in real time.

TCR2: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) must cease and a qualified archaeologist, meeting Secretary of Interior standards, must assess the find. Work on the portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. The Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI) must also be contacted (Contact Phone: (818) 837- 0794; Email: [email protected]) regarding any pre-contact and/or postcontact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes the initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

TCR3: Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), the project Applicant must, in good faith, consult with the GTIOC and FTBMI on the disposition and treatment of any Tribal Cultural Resource encountered during all ground-disturbing activities.

Therefore, with incorporation of the above mitigation measures, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Wastewater from the project would be collected by the existing sewer system. All the wastewater from the project would be treated at the City’s wastewater treatment facility.

Based on a calculation by the City of Simi Valley Department of Public Works, equivalent dwelling units (EDU) produce 275 gallons of sewage per day. Based on this, the 280 apartment units and 4,750 square feet of commercial space would produce approximately 644
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 35
59,000 gallons of sewage per day. Currently, the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant handles approximately 10 million gallons of sewage per day (mgd). The facility’s capacity is 12.5 mgd. The wastewater collection system and the City’s water delivery system have not reached capacity. The City’s Department of Public Works has reviewed the proposal and determined that no additional water or wastewater treatment facilities are required.

Based on this information, the project would not generate sewage that exceeds the limits of the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Electricity would be provided to the project site by SCE, and natural gas would be provided by the Southern California Gas Company. Telecommunications are generally available in the project area, and facility upgrades would not likely be necessary. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact on the environment from the project requiring or resulting in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? New or expanded entitlements of water supplies are not needed for this project. The proposed project would be served by the Golden State Water Company (GSWC). GSWC obtains water from groundwater from the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin and purchased supplies from Calleguas Municipal Water District (Calleguas). GSWC Simi Valley also has an emergency connection with Ventura County Water Works District #8.

GSWC’s most recent Urban Water Management Plan (July 16, 2021) forecasts demand of 6,585 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2045, for their coverage areas within the City, and takes into account the current City of Simi Valley’s General Plan’s focus on new growth in existing commercial areas through infill development. The project is consistent with the Simi Valley General Plan. The applicant will be required to obtain a will-serve letter from Golden State in order to move forward with the project. Calleguas’ current Urban Water Management Plan assures that the demands of all purveyors they serve, including the GSWC, can be met through 2035 in all but the most extreme circumstances. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment due to insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Wastewater from the project would be collected by the existing sewer system. As laid out in the Sewer Capacity Study completed for the project (Ref. #42), the existing public sewer main in Alpine has the capacity to accept and convey the wastewater flows associated with the proposed development. All the wastewater from the project would be treated at the City’s wastewater treatment facility. Based on a calculation by the City of Simi Valley Department of Public Works, equivalent dwelling units (EDU) produce 275 gallons of sewage per day. Based on this, the 280 apartment units and 4,750 square feet of commercial space would produce approximately 59,000 gallons of sewage per day.

Currently, the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant handles approximately 10 million gallons of sewage per day (mgd). The facility’s capacity is 12.5 mgd. The wastewater collection 645
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 36
system and the City’s water delivery system have not reached capacity. The City’s Department of Public Works has reviewed the proposal and determined that no additional water or wastewater treatment facilities are required. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment due to inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
(d-e) The Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center (SVLRC) would serve the proposed project. The SVLRC has a capacity of 123.1 million cubic yards of waste. Based on the maximum permitted disposal rate of 6,000 tons per day (tpd), seven days per week, 358 days per year, the site could operate until 2051 (Ref. #31). Waste Management accepts waste from a variety of sources, but they are restricted to the approval rate of 6,000 tons per day. Therefore, the SVLRC, at a minimum, has the ability to accept waste until 2051.

To comply with AB 939, the City has achieved a landfill diversion rate of at least 50 percent of its annual solid waste. Therefore, the project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

XX. WILDFIRE: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 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?
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? 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? (a-d) The project site is not identified as a potential wildfire hazard area as shown on the Fire Hazard Map in the City of Simi Valley General Plan (Ref. #13: City of Simi Valley, General Plan, Figure S-2, pg. 8-9), and is also not identified to be located within a CalFire Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Ref. #41). In addition, the project will be required to comply with Ventura County Fire Protection District Conditions of Approval issued for the conceptual approval, prior to obtaining any building permit for the new structures.

Therefore, there is a less than significant potential for a significant impact to the environment from the effects of wildland fires.
646
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 37
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Based on the answers to Section IV. a) (Biological Resources) there are no rare or endangered species present on the site and the parcel is not suitable habitat for any wildlife species or community. Since the project is within the urbanized area of the City, is surrounded by development, and has been previously graded, construction on this site will not degrade the quality of the environment to a point that would threaten any animal or plant species. Based on the answers to Sections V. and XVIII. (Cultural/Tribal Cultural Resources), there are no recorded cultural resources on the site. However, mitigation measures have been incorporated to protect any potential discovery of cultural resources encountered during project development. There are no historical structures located on the parcel. Therefore, the project will have no impact on the environment from degradation of the quality of the environment, substantial reduction of habitat of a fish or wildlife species, causing a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threatening to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduction in the number or restriction of the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species or elimination of important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? According to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Air Quality Management Plan (VCAQMP), if the project is consistent with the VCAQMP, it would have a less than significant cumulative impact on air quality. The proposed project’s operational emissions are below the threshold values and consistent with the regional population forecasts in the plan. As such, the project is consistent with the VCAQMP. Therefore, there is a less than significant cumulative impact on air quality.

In order to address cumulative traffic impacts, the Circulation Element of the General Plan adopted a Level of Service (LOS) “C” as the design objective for the arterial street system.

To meet this design objective, individual projects are required to provide a circulation analysis and any traffic improvements to meet LOS “C” at all affected intersections. The Traffic Study provided by the Applicant (Ref. #40) indicates that all of the study-area intersections will meet this objective. Since the last update of the General Plan in 2012, the Traffic Model used by the City to determine impacts on the circulation system has been updated each time a General Plan Amendment has been approved so that the model is kept up-to-date. Therefore, there is a less than significant cumulative impact on traffic and transportation.
647
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
P 16/12-21(sy) 38
Every project, including this development, is required to comply with the Countywide National Pollution Distribution Elimination System Permit (NPDES). This includes submitting storm-water drainage designs that comply with the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Urban Impact Mitigation Plan (SQUIMP) and calculating the Stormwater Quality Design Flow and Stormwater Quality Design Volume to determine the total amount and flow volume of water the design is required to clean. Compliance with these requirements ensures that each project filters the required amount of storm-water contributed to the public drainage system and countywide pollutant concentrations comply with the NPDES permit. Therefore, there is a less than significant cumulative impact on the environment from water pollution.

Since the project is consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan, the National Pollution Distribution Elimination Permit, and the City’s traffic model which indicates that all intersections affected by the project will operate at LOS “C” or better at buildout of the current General Plan, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Significant impacts to air quality, hydrology, and significant impacts from hazardous materials, geologic conditions, and noise have the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Based on the responses to questions in Section III. a) - d), the project would not have a significant impact due to pollution, consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan, or exposure of sensitive receptors to significant pollution concentrations or odors. Based on the answers to questions IX. a) - d), the project would not have a significant impact due to the use or transport of hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous materials, release of hazardous materials within a quarter mile of a school, or development on a hazardous materials site. Based on the answers to questions X. a) - e), the project would not have a significant impact due to erosion, flooding, and polluted runoff. Based on the answers to questions VII. a) - f), the project would not have a significant impact due to surface rupture, seismic ground failure, or landslides. Based on the answers to questions XIII. a) - c), the project would not have a significant impact on the environment due to the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, the increase of ambient noise by 3 dB(A), or a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels.

Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from effects which will cause direct or indirect substantial adverse effects on human beings.

XXII. REFERENCES:

1. City of Simi Valley, Development Code, Title 9 of the City of Simi Valley Municipal Code (SVMC).

2. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Regulation IV – Prohibitions: Rule 51 – Nuisance, April, 13, 2004.

3. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, 2016.

4. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Final 2016 Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan, February 14, 2017.
648
P 16/12-21(sy) 39

5. Lander, E. Bruce, "Geology and Vertebrate paleontology of Cenozoic Non-marine Rock Units in Simi Valley, “Simi Valley: A Journey through Time”, 1997.

6. Engineering Science, Inc., Paleontological Resource Assessment Overview, Simi Valley, Ventura County, California, 1986.

7. Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board, Ventura County Historical Landmarks and Points of Interest, May 2016.

8. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, State of California Earthquake Fault Zones, Simi Valley West Quadrangle, May 1, 1999.

9. California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, State of California Earthquake Shaking Potential Map, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, accessed August 31, 2021.

10. California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Simi Valley West Quadrangle, April 7, 1997.

11. City of Simi Valley, Building Code, Title 8 of the Simi Valley Municipal Code, 2019.

12. State of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Article 1.

13. City of Simi Valley, General Plan, Resolution No. 2012-27, May 24, 2012.

14. City of Simi Valley, General Plan Update: Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH 2009121004, June 2012.

15. City of Simi Valley, Street Map (Current).

16. City of Simi Valley, City of Simi Valley Bicycle Master Plan, 2009.

17. California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov, accessed August 31, 2021.

18. City of Simi Valley, Master Plan of Drainage, Hawk and Associates (updated October 2019).

19. Geosyntec Consultants and Larry Walker and Associates, Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program: Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, November 2010.

20. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Community Panel Number 06111C0843E, January 20, 2010.

21. Ventura County Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit (Board Order No. R4-2010-0108, Permit # CAS 004002).

22. Calleguas Municipal Water District, Inundation Map for Bard Reservoir, dated July 1, 1973.

23. Ventura County Watershed Protection District, Inundation Map for Las Llajas Dam, November 1999.

24. California Division of Mines and Geology, Geology and Mineral Resources Study of Southern Ventura County, California, 1973.

25. California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, District 2 Oil Fields Map, March 22, 2001.

26. California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, Regional Wildcat Map, Map W2-1, June 12, 2001.

27. “Noise Control: A Basic Program for Local Governments”, Management Information Service, Vo. 7, No. 3 (March 1975), pg. 6.

28. Brüel & Kjær, Environmental Noise, http://www.nonoise.org/library/envnoise/index.htm.

29. U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, December 2019.

30. City of Simi Valley, 2013 Managed Growth Plan, “Measure N”, adopted November 2012.

31. Science Applications International Corporation, Final Environmental Impact Report, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project, Ventura County, California, December 2010.
649
P 16/12-21(sy) 40

32. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2020.

33. American Association of State Highway and Transportation, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1994.

34. California Department of Conservation, California Tsunami Maps and Data, www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps, accessed August 31, 2021.

35. Roberta Thomas, M.A., RPA, and Chandra Miller, M.A., Cultural Resource Investigation in support of the Santa Susana Plaza Project, City of Simi Valley, Ventura County, California, July 16, 2021

36. Meridian Consultants, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study for the Santa Susana Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project, 2196 Tapo Street, Simi Valley, Ca 93065, June, 2021

37. PAX Environmental, Inc., Santa Susana Plaza Mixed-Use Redevelopment Tree Report, October 1, 2021

38. Advanced geotechnical services, Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed MixedUse Redevelopment, 2196 Tapo Street, Simi Valley, California, June 24, 2021

39. Jensen Design & Survey, Inc., Preliminary Drainage Report Santa Susana, September 20, 2021

40. Associated Transportation Engineers, Santa Susana Plaza Redevelopment Project, City of Simi Valley, California – Revised Traffic, Circulation and Parking Study, September 9, 2021

41. CalFire, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA Map, October 6, 2010 [https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6023/simi_valley.pdf]

42. Jensen Design & Survey, Inc., Sewer Capacity Study Santa Susana, September 20, 2021

43. Meridian Consultants, Noise Study for the Santa Susana Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project, 2196 Tapo Street, Simi Valley, Ca 93065, November, 2021

XXIII. LIST BELOW THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO PREPARED OR PARTICIPATED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY.

Case Planner: Claudia Pedroso
Environmental Planner: Naren Gunasekera
Project Engineer: Steve Benjamin
Traffic Engineer: Justin Link
650

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
651

EXHIBIT
652

PROCOPIO
100 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 520
Irvine, CA 92618
T. 949.383.2997
F. 619.235.0398

MORGAN GALLAGHER
P. 858.480.8218
[email protected]

DEL MAR HEIGHTS

LAS VEGAS

ORANGE COUNTY

PHOENIX

SAN DIEGO

SILICON VALLEY
5655938.1
January 11, 2022
VIA E-MAIL ([email protected])
Sean Gibson, AICP
Deputy Environmental Services Director/City
Planner
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063
Re: Request for a Density Bonus, Incentives, and Waivers for the Santa Susana Mixed-Use Development Project
Dear Mr. Gibson:
known as Santa Susana Plaza located at 2196
The Project Site is an infill site currently developed with an existing shopping center. Gerrity proposes to demolish a portion of the existing retail structures to be replaced with approximately 280 residential units with ground-floor and retail uses to create a revitalized commercial and retail center To pursue the Project, Gerrity proposes to utilize California Government Code Section (Cal.

Gov. Code) 65915 (t -
31- 020 and submits this letter to request various waivers and one (1) incentive/concession in exchange for providing 5% (or 14 units) to be reserved for very low-income levels of 50% Area Median Income.

Density Bonus Provision of Concessions and Waivers
The State Density Bonus Law, among other things, mandates that, in exchange for a nt
the developer a density bonus, mandatory incentives, and unlimited opportunities to request waivers to local development standards.1
1 Cal. Gov. Code 65915(b); 65915(d); 65915(e)(1).
653 EXHIBIT 7
2 5655938.1
The State Density Bonus Law is an enabling statute as well as a mandate. It authorizes local governments to adopt ordinances specifying how compliance with its provisions will be implemented in their jurisdictions; but it also mandates that local governments, at a minimum, comply with its baseline requirements. Thus, local governments may elect to provide greater benefits to developers than the base requirements of the State Density Bonus Law but may not provide fewer benefits .2 Concessions / Incentives
The State Density Bonus Law provides for mandatory concessions/incentives. Cal. Gov. Code 65915(d) states that a developer whose entitlement plan provides affordable housing in exchange for a density bonus,in accordance with 65915(b), may also submit proposal for the specific incentives city . . . shall grant the concession or
incentive requ the
concession of incentive would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety, or would be contrary to state or federal law.3 As to which developer-proposed incentives must be granted, GC 65915(k) states that a city, concessions proposed by the developer or the city . . . that result in identifiable and actual cost Waivers
At the same time, the State Density Bonus Law provides (i) that a developer may propose unlimited waivers or reductions to development standards and (ii) that a city must grant such waivers wherever specific development standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the development at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by the State Density Bonus Law. Cal Government Code 65915(e)(1) no case may a city . . . apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria . . . at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this
condition, including, but not limited to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, or a parking ratio that applies to a residential development

2 Cal. Gov. Code 65915(a)(1)-(2)
3 Cal. Gov. Code Sec. 65915(d)(1)(A)-(B). NOTE: The requirement that the city justify its decision by a written finding based on substantial evidence triggers a stricter standard of judicial review if the developer contests the he developer were to take the city to court, as permitted by Sec. 65915(d)(3), on the to justify its decision by producing substantial eviden the negative outcomes listed in (d)(1) (A-B). Furthermore, Sec. 65915(d)(4) places the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive on the city, which means that the city has the burden of producing incentive.
654
3 5655938.1
pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local condition, law, It should also be noted that pursuant to GC 65915(e)(2), proposal for the waiver of reduction of development standards pursuant to [subdivision (e)] shall neither reduce nor increase the number to
unlimited waiver requests in addition to the proposed incentive(s) defined in GC 65915(k) which a city must grant to the developer pursuant to GC 65915(d).

Summary of Density Bonus, Incentive and Waiver Requests Base density of 280 multi-family dwelling units, of which 5% (or 14 units) would be reserved for very low-income levels (50%

20.1 dwelling units per acre on the 13.88-acre Project Site and would not exceed the Mixed Use maximum density of 30 units per acre.

Although a density bonus of 20% is permitted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 65915(f)(2) and SVMC 9-31- 020(A), the applicant is not seeking a density bonus; One density bonus concession/incentive, granted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 65915(d)(1) and SVMC 9-31-020(B), to increase the number of stories from three (3) stories to four (4) stories;
One density bonus waiver, granted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 65915(e)(1) and SVMC 9- 31- 020(C), to waive or reduce the private open space requirement set forth in SVMC 9-

44.105(E)(1);
One density bonus waiver, granted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 65915(e)(1) and SVMC 9- 31- 020(C), to reduce storage requirements set forth in SVMC 9-44.105(D)(4); One density bonus waiver, granted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 65915(e)(1) and SVMC 9- 31- 020(C), to reduce bicycle parking requirements set forth in SVMC 9-44.105(G)(9); One density bonus waiver, granted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 65915(e)(1) and SVMC 9-31- entries as forth in SVMC 9-34-080(A).

One density bonus waiver, granted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 65915(e)(1) and SVMC 9- 31-020(C) to waive the requirement of utilizing 9 as set forth in SVMC 9-

34.080.A and instead utilize 9 for 37 of the Project parking spaces.

One density bonus waiver, granted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 65915(e)(1) and SVMC 9- 31-020(C) to waive the requirement set forth in SVMC 9-44.105.G.3 for off-street parking to be located no more than 200 feet from the dwelling unit for which the parking is provided.
655
4 5655938.1
The request and justification for the Incentive/Concession and Waivers are further described below:

CONCESSION REQUEST:

1. Increase Allowable Number of Stories
Gerrity proposes to use a concession to increase the allowable number of stories to address an inconsistency between the General Plan, Zoning and the Mixed-Use Overlay. -Use up designated as an Infill Area in
the General Plan Growth Diagram and is located within Area D Tapo Street Corridor which provides for 3-story vertical mixed-use commercial and residential, General Commercial, Office Commercial and Very High Residential uses. The Site is zoned Commercial Planned Development and has a Mixed-Use Overlay and is located within the Tapo Plan Overlay. The zone limits the height to 3 stories; however, the Mixed-Use Overlay permits 4 stories. -story height limitation to four (4) stories would
be permitted under the concession/incentive provisions of State Density Bonus Law 65915(d)(1) and SVMC 9-31-020(B), to increase the number of stories from three (3) stories to four (4) stories. The addition of a fourth story results in an identifiable cost reduction that provides for the cost of reserving 14 units for very low-income levels.

WAIVER REQUESTS:

1. Reduce Private Open Space Requirement
In accordance with Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) and SVMC 9-31-020.C, Gerrity requests a waiver to reduce the private open space requirement imposed by SVMC 9-

44.105(E)(1). Gerrit request for a waiver to the open space requirements is expressly provided for by Cal.
as used throughout State Density Bonus Law including the waiver provision8 SVMC 9-44.105(E)(1) requires 100 square feet of private open space per dwelling unit. 734 square feet in size. If Gerrity were required to comply with SVMC 9-44.105(E)(1), it would have to reserve 28,000 square feet for private open space (280 x 100 = 28,000). The project as designed provides an average patio of 62 square feet/unit or 17,360 square feet total of private open space. To meet the required 28,000 square feet of private open space would require an additional 10,640 square feet resulting in the loss of 14 units (10,640 square feet / 734 square feet = 14.5 units = 14 units).
656
5 5655938.1
The application of SVMC 9-44.105(E)(1) would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of Gerrity s Density Bonus Project at the density and with the concessions to which its reservation of 14 very low-income units entitles it. The loss of 14 units would negatively impact the Density Bonus Project. Therefore, the City is required by Cal. Gov.

Code 65915(e)(1) to grant Gerrity s request to waive or reduce the private open space requirement of SVMC 9-44.105(E)(1), because if imposed, it would undoubtedly physically preclude construction of the Density Bonus Project at the density (280 units) and with the concession (height increase to four stories) Gerrity is entitled to under the State Density Bonus Law.

Project with DB & Wavier Project without DB & Waiver
Units Lost 0 14
Total Units 280 266

2. Reduce Storage Area Requirement
Gerrity requests a waiver to reduce the storage requirement outlined in SVMC 9-

44.105(D)(4) which requires an enclosed lockable storage area attached to the unit or assigned carport parking space for residential units with no garage. This request is provided for by Gov. Code 65915(e)(1), on the grounds that fully complying with this provision would physically preclude the construction of development. Full compliance with this code provision would require providing 280 lockers. The project proposes to provide 8,900 square feet or 172 lockers to be used for storage/bike parking spaces at an average of 51.7 square feet per locker. To meet the full code requirement of 280 lockers, the project would be required to provide an additional 108 lockers at 51.7 square feet per locker requiring an additional 5,583 square feet of storage space. Full compliance with the code would result in the loss of approximately 7 units (5,583 sf / 734 square feet of average unit size = 7.6 units = loss of 7 units).

As a result, the project requests a reduction in the storage area requirement for all 280 units and proposes to include 172 storage lockers which can be utilized also as bicycle storage and parking.

Project with DB & Wavier Project without DB & Waiver
Units Lost 0 7
Total Units 280 273

3. Reduce Bicycle Parking Requirements
SVMC 9-44.105(G)(9) requires covered, secure bicycle parking to be provided at a rate of one bicycle parking space per residential unit without a garage. Gerrity requests to utilize a 657
6 5655938.1
waiver for this requirement on the grounds that fully complying with this provision would physically preclude the construction of development.

To satisfy this code provision, the project proposes to provide for bicycle storage by providing 172 storage lockers, which can also be utilized as bicycle storage and parking.

To meet the full code requirement of 280 lockers, the project would be required to provide an additional 108 lockers at 51.7 square feet per locker requiring an additional 5,583 square feet of storage space. Full compliance with the code would result in the loss of 7 units (5,583 sf / 734 square feet of average unit size = 7.6 units = loss of 7 units).

The project proposes to provide 172 lockers at an average of 51.7 square feet per locker. To meet the full code requirement of 286 lockers, the project would be required to provide an additional 108 lockers at 51.7 square feet per locker requiring an additional 5,583 square feet of storage space. Full compliance with the code would result in the loss of approximately 7 units (5,583 sf / 734 square feet of average unit size = 7.63 units = loss of 7 units).

Project with DB & Wavier Project without DB & Waiver
Units Lost 0 7
Total Units 280 273

4. Reduce the Drive Aisle Requirements
SVMC 9-34.080(A) specifies a 12-foot drive aisle for one way drives at garage entries. Gerrity requests to utilize a waiver to reduce this requirement on the grounds thatfully complying with this provision would physically preclude the construction of development.

There are two drive aisles at the garage ground level, each of which are wide. To meet the required 12-foot wide drive aisle requirement would physically preclude the project as designed and proposed.

5. Reduce the Size of 37 Stalls
SVMC 9-34.080.A requires stalls to be 9 . To accommodate the development project, Gerrity requests permission to waive this standard and reduce the size of a total of 37 stalls to 9 . To meet the required 9 by 18 requirement would physically preclude the project as designed and proposed.

6. Relief from the Requirement to Locate Assigned Stalls within 200 Feet of Units SVMC 9-44.105.G.3 requires off-street parking to be located no more than 200 feet from the dwelling unit for which the parking is provided. To accommodate the development project, Gerrity requests permission to waive this standard. To locate all stalls within 200 feet 658
7 5655938.1
of their respective dwelling unit would physically preclude the project as designed and proposed.

We thank you for your consideration of Gerrity s request for a Density Bonus Project and associated Incentives and Waivers for the Santa Susana Mixed-Use Development Project. Gerrity requests approval to move forward with processing the Density Bonus Project proposed above.

Sincerely,
Morgan Gallagher
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674

Simi Valley City CouncilFebruary 28, 2022

Simi Valley City Council
February 28, 2022