Staff Report — Simi Valley City Council, January 23, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

AM NOON PM
AM 243 382 69
NOON 0 0 0
PM 321 645 117
1 2 1
798 0 1230 ¢=i
0 0 0 ~ 0
111 0 316 .t 1
320 0 792 ... 3
0 0
0 0
Day: Tuesday
Date: 11/02/2021
()
646 AM 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
C:
z
-I
0 NOON NONE "O
m
;o
1096 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM 0 PM 0
en
it PM NOON AM
1 t. 253 0 77
3 ... 789 0 387
1 ' 321 0 82 0 c.- 1 0 1
¢ 1033 0 446
99 0 254 "\- 0 0 2 2 0
AM NOON PM 11~tr PM NOON AM
Total Vehicles (AM) PM 1220 0 120 527 123 PM Total Vehicles (AM) NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 563 0 168 458 56 AM
Total Vehicles {NOON) Total Vehicles (NOON)
Total Vehicles (PM) Total Vehicles (PM)
326
Prepared by N ational Data & Surveying Services
Etringer Rd & Patricia Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
ID: 21-030083-003
City: Simi Valley
Day: Tuesday
Date: 11/02/2021
Cl)
0::
::,
0 ::c
!>:'.
<(
w
Q.

Q)
~
-~ 0
·c
-
ca
a.
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
NONE
AM
NOON
45 502 19
0 0 0
0 667
0 0
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM PM 108 878 73 773

AM NOON PM
0 2 1 0
105 0 180 <!=
0 0 0 _) 0
56 0 63 j 0
3 0 4 -+ 1
28 0 72 ,, 0 0 1 2 0
AM
NOON
PM
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

PM NOON AM
0 t. 44 0 20
1 +- 9 0 3
0 ' 55 0 16
oc;- o o o
c::;> 134 0 48
AM NOON PM ..0,. .,, ., t ,. PM NOON AM
0 0
C
z
-I
.,
m
;u
0 0
(/)
Total Vehicles (AM) PM 1005 0 63 665 57 PM Total Vehicles (AM) NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 546 0 57 591 26 AM
Total Vehicles (NOON)
Total Vehicles (PM)
327
Prepared by National Data & Smveying Services
Etringer Rd & Heywood St
Peak H out Turning Movement Count
ID: 21-030083-002
City: Simi Valley
en
c::
::,
0 :I:
::.::
<l:
w
a.
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM

AM NOON PM
AM
NOON
PM
54 0 67 ¢=i
0 0 0 _) 0
32 0 48 ~ 0
4 0 6 .... 1
22 0 37 .,, 0

AM NOON PM
Total Vehicles (AM) PM
NOON
AM
Total Vehicles (NOON)
Total Vehicles (PM)
31 429 33 0 654
0 0 0 0 0
37 814 80 0 742
0 2 1 0
0 1 2 0
AM
NOON
PM
Day: Tuesday
Date: 11/02/2021
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

PM NOON AM
1 t. 78 0 88
1 .. 4 0 4
0 ' 59 0 59
o c;' o o o
=:> 151 0 75

PM NOON AM
(")
0 C
z
-I
"'I]
m
;o
0 0
CJ)
:c
(I) ~ 0
0 C.
en
-
910 0 26 616 65 PM Total Vehicles (AM)
0 0 0 0 0 NOON
510 0 19 534 38 AM
Total Vehicles (NOON)
Total Vehicles (PM)
328
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Etringer Rd & Royal Ave
Peak H our Turning Movement Count
ID: 21-030083-001
City: Simi Valley
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
NONE
AM 195 179 56
NOON 0 0 0
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM PM 179 363 137

AM NOON PM
720 0 654 ¢=i
0 0 0 _) 0
105 0 284 j 1
263 0 751 -+ 2
1 2 1
0 491
0 0
0 632
0 13 0 62 "l, 0 0 1 2 0
AM
NOON
PM
Day: Tuesday
Date: 11/02/2021
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

PM NOON AM
0 t. 118 0 116
2 ~ 427 0 477
1 ' 29 0 11
oC. o o o
=!> 907 0 334
AM NOON PM -0,- " ., t ,. PM NOON AM
C)
0 C
z
-f
"U
m
;o
0 c::,
en
Total Vehicles (AM) PM 454 0 48 230 19 PM Total Vehicles (AM) NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 203 0 48 270 15 AM
Total Vehicles (NOON) Total Vehicles (NOON)
Total Vehicles (PM) Total Vehicles (PM)
329

TRIP GENERATION WORKSHEET
330
I
Associated Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation Worksheet
HEYWOOD STRRET APARTMENT PROJECT (#21074)
Use I Size I
Internal I Pass-By ADT AM PEAK HOUR
Factor Factor Rate Trips Rate Trips In % TriJ)_s Out % Out % Trips

RESIDENTIAL
Low Rise Multifamily Housing(a) 83 DU 1.00 1.00 6.74 559 0.40 33 24% 8 76% 25 0.51 42 63% 26 37% 16 Totals: 559 33 8 25 42 26 16
(a) Trip generation based on ITE rates for Low Rise Multifamily Housing (ITE #220) Using Average Rates. 331

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS
Reference 1 - Los Angeles Avenue/Erringer Road
Reference 2 - Patricia Street/Erringer Road
Reference 3 - Heywood Street/Erringer Road
Reference 4 - Royal Avenue/Erringer Road
332
HEYWOOD STREET APARTMENTS PROJECT (#21074) REF: 01AM

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COU NT DATE: 10/22/2021
TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: ERRINGER ROAD
EM/ STREET: LOS ANGELES A VENUE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 168 458 56 69 382 243 111 320 99 83 387 77 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 6 10 4 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL TTR L TT R L TT TR L TTT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A + B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO VIC RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 2 3600 168 174 0.047 0.048
NBT 2 3600 458 468 0.143 * 0.147 *
NBR 0 0 56 60 - -
SBL 1 1800 69 69 0.038 * 0.038 *
SBT 2 3600 382 385 0.106 0.107
SBR 1 1800 243 243 0.135 0.135
EBL 1 1800 111 111 0.062 * 0.062 *
EBT 3 5400 320 320 0.078 0.078
EBR 0 0 99 101 -
WBL 1 1800 83 84 0.046 0.047
WBT 3 5400 387 387 0.072 * 0.072 *
WBR 1 1800 77 77 0.043 0.043
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.32 0.32
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A
NOTES:

Printed: 11 /22/2 1
333
HEYWOOD STREET APARTMENTS PROJECT (#21074) REF: 01 PM

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 10/22/2021
TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: ERRINGER ROAD
E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES A VENUE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 120 527 123 117 645 321 316 792 254 322 789 253 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 4 6 3 0 10 0 0 0 7 4 0 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL TTR L TT R L TT TR L TTT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ BJ

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 2 3600 120 124 0.033 0.034
NBT 2 3600 527 533 0.181 * 0.183 *
NBR 0 0 123 126 - -
SBL 1 1800 11 7 117 0.065 * 0.065 *
SBT 2 3600 645 655 0 .179 0.182
SBR 1 1800 321 321 0.178 0.178
EBL 1 1800 316 316 0.176 0.176
EBT 3 5400 792 792 0 .1 94 * 0.195 *
EBR 0 0 254 261 - -
WBL 1 1800 322 326 0.1 79 * 0.181 *
WBT 3 5400 789 789 0.146 0.1 46
WBR 1 1800 253 253 0 .1 41 0.141
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.62 0.62
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B
NOTES:

Printed: 11 /22/2 1
334
HEYWOOD STREET APARTMENTS PROJECT (#21074) REF: 01 AM

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 10/22/2021
TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: ERRINGER ROAD
E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES A VENUE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNA L

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND W EST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 6 10 4 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0
(C) CUMU LATIVE: 200 765 167 121 652 263 266 469 207 142 678 104

GEOMETRICS

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND W EST BOUND

FUTURE LANE GEOMETRICS LL TTR L TT R L TTTR LL TTT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 3 - CUMULATIVE (CJ
SCENARIO 4 - CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES (B + C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCU LATIO NS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 2 3600 200 206 0.056 0.057
NBT 2 3600 765 775 0.259 * 0.263 *
NBR 0 0 167 171 - -
SBL 1 1800 121 121 0.067 * 0.067 *
SBT 2 3600 652 655 0.181 0.182
SBR 1 1800 263 263 0. 146 0.1 46
EBL 1 1800 266 266 0.148 * 0.148 *
EBT 3 5400 469 469 0.125 0.126
EBR 0 0 207 209 - -
WBL 2 3600 142 143 0.039 0.040
WBT 3 5400 6 78 678 0.1 26 * 0.126 *
WBR 1 1800 104 104 0.058 0.058
TOTAL INTERSECTI ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.60 0.60
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A
N O TES:

Printed: 11 /22/2 1
335
HEYWOOD STREET APARTMENTS PROJECT (#21074) REF: 01 PM

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 10/22/202 1
TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: ERRINGER ROAD
E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES A VENUE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VO LUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUN D WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 4 6 3 0 10 0 0 0 7 4 0 0
(C) CUMULATIVE: 290 587 167 172 742 419 328 1438 295 185 845 38

GEOMETRICS

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUN D WEST BOUND

FUTURE LANE GEOMETRICS LL TTR L TT R L TT TR LL TTT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 3 - CUM U LATIVE (C)
SCENARIO 4 - CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES (B + C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIO NS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO VIC RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 2 3600 290 294 0.081 0.082
NBT 2 3600 587 593 0.209 * 0.2 12 *
NBR 0 0 16 7 170 - -
SB L 1 1800 172 172 0.096 * 0.096 *
SBT 2 3600 742 752 0.206 0.209
SBR 1 1800 419 419 0.233 0.233
EBL 1 1800 328 328 0.182 0.182
EBT 3 5400 1438 1438 0.32 1 * 0.322 *
EBR 0 0 295 302
WBL 2 3600 185 189 0.051 * 0.053 *
WBT 3 5400 845 845 0.156 0. 156
WBR 1 1800 38 38 0.02 1 0.021
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.68 0.68
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B
NOTES:

Printed: 11 /22/2 1
336
HEYWOOD STREET APARTMENT PROJECT (#21074) REF: 02AM

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 10/22/2021
TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: ERRINGER ROAD
E/W STREET: PA TRICIA A VENUE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 57 591 26 19 502 45 56 3 28 16 3 20
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 20 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(C) · CUMULATIVE: 155 1264 69 44 1169 53 60 11 79 31 8 39

GEOMETRICS

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS L TTR L TTR LTR LTR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 - EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 - EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 - CUMULATIVE (CJ
SCENARIO 4 - CUMULATIVE + PROJ ECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 1 1800 57 57 155 155 0.032 0.032 0.086 * 0.086 *
NBT 2 3600 591 611 1264 1284 0 .171 * 0.177 * 0.3 70 0.376 NBR 0 0 26 26 69 69 - - - -
SB L 1 1800 19 19 44 44 0.011 * 0.011 • 0.024 0.024
SBT 2 3600 502 508 1169 11 75 0. 152 0.154 0.339 * 0.341 .

SBR 0 0 45 45 53 53 - - - -
EBL 0 0 56 56 60 60 - - - -
EBT 1 1800 3 3 11 11 0.048 * 0.048 * 0.083 * 0.083 *
EBR 0 0 28 28 79 79 - - -
WBL 0 0 16 16 31 31 - - -
WBT 1 1800 3 3 8 8 0.022 * 0.022 * 0.043 * 0.043 *
WBR 0 0 20 20 39 39 - - - -
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.25 0.26 0.55 0.55 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A
NOTES:

Printed: 11 /2 1/21
337
HEYWOOD STREET APARTMENT PROJECT (#21074) REF: 02 PM

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 10/22/2021
TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: ERRINGER ROAD
E/W STREET: PA TRICIA A VENUE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTI NG: 63 665 5 7 74 878 108 63 4 72 55 9 44
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 13 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(C) CUMULATIVE: 80 948 72 127 1021 146 106 13 94 65 23 100

GEOMETRICS

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS L TTR L TTR LTR LTR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C)
SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE+ PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 1 1800 63 63 80 80 0.035 * 0.035 * 0.044 * 0.044 *
NBT 2 3600 665 678 948 961 0.201 0.204 0. 283 0.287
NBR 0 0 57 57 72 72 - - - -
SBL 1 1800 74 74 127 127 0.041 0.041 0.0 71 0.0 71
SBT 2 3600 8 78 899 1021 1042 0.2 74 * 0.280 * 0.324 * 0.330 * SBR 0 0 108 108 146 146 -
EBL 0 0 63 63 106 106 - - - -
EBT 1 1800 4 4 13 13 0.077 * 0.077 * 0.118 * 0.118 *
EBR 0 0 72 72 94 94 - -
WBL 0 0 55 55 65 65 - - - -
WBT 1 1800 9 9 23 23 0.060 * 0.0 60 * 0.104 * 0.104 *
WBR 0 0 44 44 100 100 - - -
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.45 0.45 0.59 0.60 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A
NOTES:

Printed: 11/21/2 1
338
HEYWOOD STREET APARTMENT PROJECT (#21074) REF: 03AM

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 10/22/2021
TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: ERRINGER ROAD
E/W STREET: HEYWOOD STREET
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 19 534 38 33 429 31 32 4 22 59 4 88
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 2 0 0 0 0 6 20 0 5 0 0 0
(C) CUMULATIVE: 20 1363 40 35 1209 35 35 5 25 60 5 90

GEOMETRICS

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS L TTR L TTR LTR LTR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING+ PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)
SCENARIO 3 = CUMU LATIVE (C)
SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE+ PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO VIC RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 1 1800 19 21 20 22 0.011 0.012 0.011 0.012
NBT 2 3600 534 534 1363 1363 0.159 * 0.159 * 0.390 * 0.390 * NBR 0 0 38 38 40 40 - - - -
SBL 1 1800 33 33 35 35 0.018 * 0.018 * 0.019 * 0.019 *
SBT 2 3600 429 429 1209 1209 0.128 0.129 0.346 0.347
SBR 0 0 31 37 35 41 - -
EBL 0 0 32 52 35 55 - - -
EBT 1 1800 4 4 5 5 0.032 * 0.046 * 0.036 * 0.050 *
EBR 0 0 22 27 25 30 - - -
WBL 0 0 59 59 60 60 - -
WBT 1 1800 4 4 5 5 0.084 * 0.084 * 0.086 * 0.086 *
WBR 0 0 88 88 90 90 - - -
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.29 0.31 0.53 0.55 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A
NOTES:

Printed: 11 /2 1/21
339
HEYWOOD STREET APARTMENT PROJECT (#21074) REF: 03 PM

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 10/22/2021
TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: ERRINGER ROAD
E/W STREET: HEYWOOD STREET
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 26 616 65 80 814 37 48 6 37 59 4 78
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 5 0 1 0 0 21 13 0 3 0 0 0
(C) CUMULATIVE: 30 970 65 80 1060 40 50 10 40 60 5 80

GEOMETRICS

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS L TTR L TTR LTR LTR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 - EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 - EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 - CUMULATIVE (C)
SCENARIO 4 - CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCU LATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 1 1800 26 31 30 35 0.014 * 0.01 7 * 0.017 0.019
NBT 2 3600 616 616 970 970 0.189 0.189 0.288 * 0.288 *
NBR 0 0 65 66 65 66 - - -
SBL 1 1800 80 80 80 80 0.044 0.044 0.044 * 0.044 *
58T 2 3600 814 814 1060 1060 0.236 * 0.242 * 0.306 0.311 SBR 0 0 37 58 40 61 - - - -
EBL 0 0 48 61 50 63 - - - -
EBT 1 1800 6 6 10 10 0.051 . 0.059 * 0.056 * 0.064 *
EBR 0 0 37 40 40 43 - - -
WBL 0 0 59 59 60 60 - - -
WBT 1 1800 4 4 5 5 0.078 * 0.078 * 0.081 . 0.081 .

WBR 0 0 78 78 80 80 - -
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.38 0.40 0.47 0.48 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A
NOTES:

Printed: 11 /21 12 1
340
HEYWOOD STREET APARTMENTS PROJECT (#21074) REF: 04AM

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 10/22/2021
TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: ERRINGER ROAD
E/W STREET: ROYAL AVENUE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(AJ EXISTING: 48 270 15 56 179 195 105 263 13 11 477 116 (BJ PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1
(CJ CUMULATIVE: 108 599 45 105 569 · 409 402 654 50 81 779 194

GEOMETRICS

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS L TTR L TT R L TTR L TTR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C)
SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO VIC RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 1 1800 48 48 108 108 0.027 * 0.027 * 0.060 * 0.060 * NBT 2 3600 270 270 599 599 0.079 0.079 0.1 79 0.179
NBR 0 0 15 15 45 45 - - -
SBL 1 1800 56 58 105 107 0.031 0.032 0.058 0.059
SST 2 3600 179 179 569 569 0.050 0.050 0.158 0.158
SBR 1 1800 195 198 409 41 2 0 .108 * 0.110 * 0.22 7 * 0.229 * EBL 1 1800 105 106 402 403 0.058 * 0.059 * 0.223 * 0.224 * EBT 2 3600 263 263 654 654 0.077 0.077 0.196 0.196
EBR 0 0 13 13 50 50 - - - -
WBL 1 1800 11 11 81 81 0.006 0.006 0.045 0.045
WBT 2 3600 477 4 77 779 779 0.165 * 0.165 * 0.270 * 0.271 * WBR 0 0 116 117 194 195 - - - -
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.36 0.36 0.78 0.78 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A C C
NOTES:

Printed: 11 /21 /2 1
341
HEYW OOD STREET APARTMENTS PROJECT (#21074) REF: 04 PM

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 10/22/202 1
TIME PER IOD: PM PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: ERRINGER ROAD
E/W STREET: ROYAL AVENUE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(AJ EXISTING: 48 230 19 137 363 179 284 75 1 62 29 427 118 (BJ PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 2
(CJ CUMULATIVE: 66 323 37 173 484 310 350 927 83 46 539 141

GEOMETRICS

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS L TTR L TT R L TTR L TTR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C)
SCENARIO 4 = CUMU LATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES (B + C)

LEVEL O F SERVICE CALCU LATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 1 1800 48 48 66 66 0.027 0.027 0.037 * 0.037 *
NBT 2 3600 230 230 323 323 0.069 * 0.069 * 0.100 0.100
NBR 0 0 19 19 37 37 - - - -
SBL 1 1800 137 138 173 174 0.076 * 0.077 * 0.096 0.097
SBT 2 3600 363 363 484 484 0.101 0.101 0.134 0.134
SBR 1 1800 179 181 310 312 0.099 0.101 0. 172 * 0.1 73 * EBL 1 1800 284 287 350 353 0.158 * 0.159 * 0.194 * 0.196 * EBT 2 3600 751 751 927 927 0.226 0.226 0.281 0.281
EBR 0 0 62 62 83 83 -
WBL 1 1800 29 29 46 46 0.016 0.016 0.026 0.026
WBT 2 3600 427 427 539 539 0.151 * 0.152 * 0.189 * 0.189 * WBR 0 0 118 120 141 143 - -
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.45 0.46 0.59 0.60 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A
NOTES:

Printed: 11 /2 112 1
342

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
343
EXHIBIT 3
Tree Report
344

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
345
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 1 of 9
Addendum 1 to ARBORIST REPORT TITLE:

Heywood Street and Erringer Road Project
PREPARED FOR:

Itule Real Estate Group, Inc.

PREPARED BY:

John Burke, Registered Consulting Arborist #591 ASCA
DATE of Last Report: December 29, 2021
DATE of Addendum 1:

March 30, 2022
LOCATION:

Heywood Street and Erringer Road, Simi Valley, CA
346 EXHIBIT 3
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 2 of 9

SUMMARY
This addendum to the tree report is to account for changes created by the Alternate Site Plan which includes removing one street tree and saving a large peppermint eucalyptus. The addendum also addresses specific questions raised by the city’s review.

Given the Alternate Site Plan, one street tree #18 will be removed and the large peppermint ecucalyptus #82 will be saved. The city also explained that palms are covered by the ordiance so the appraised value of palms to remove was included with the mitigation. Total mitigation decreased to $46,136 a difference of $18,730. See revised Appendix J for details.

Based on this new information, the trees were sorted as follows:

Onsite Protected Trees to preserve: 4. Appraised Value: $31,150 Onsite Protected Trees to remove: 40. Mitigation Value: $46,136 Buffer Zone Trees to protect: 27. Appraised Value: $50,913 Trees outside impact area: 59.

Total trees/palm in original study: 130.
347
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 3 of 9
The following questions were raised by the city’s review.

ANSWERS:
a. Tree report removes street tree #18 due to new sidewalk, appraised value added to mitigation. b. Tree #20 is not being removed and so should not have appeared on the removal list. That was a proofreading error. See revised Appendix J page 35.
c. Revised Landscape Plans show Tree #20 is not being removed and tree #15, #35through 39 to be removed. This is the same as shown in Appendix J.
d. Palms values added to mitigation.
e. Is tree 35 off property? Yes, according to the engineers’ survey and visually it appears to be inline with the other pine trees.
348
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 4 of 9
f. This is a short report but a long document and may be confusing. This report consists of pages 1 through 15 plus supporting documents in appendices A through K. The appendices are in alphabetical order A through K with a header on each page and a page number at the bottom. g. Impacts to the trees along the southern elevation. That analysis can be found in Appendix K, a revised Appendix K is attached to this addendum. Risk of loss is low if the tree protection plan is followed except for evergreen elm tree #86, note that #86 is 1’ to the line of excavation or cut and will lose 40% of its critical root zone. In my experience an elm tree this young should not suffer significant damage.

The table below from appendix K can be used in conjunction with the tree map to assess impact. 349
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 5 of 9

TREE PRESERVATION PLAN TASKS TABLE
ID# Name HT WD DBH
Fence+sign
Prune: clear
Prune:
other
Root Prune
Demo
Grading
Dust Ctrl
Monitor
Loss Risk
Notes
(CRZ = 5xDBH)
Onsite Trees to protect
1 Ginko 25 20 9.0 1 1 Street
19 Carrotwood 30 20 12 1 1 Street
21 Aleppo Pine 60 40 34 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 low Dead hanger 82 Peppermt Euc 60 50 48.0 1 1 1 1 1 low 8' to cut, -15% CRZ Offsite Buffer Zone Trees to Protect
20 Canary Pine 60 30 21.0 1 1 1 1 1 low minor root loss 83 Pepper 30 30 11.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 low 3' to cut, -10% CRZ 84 Fan Palm 30 10 0.0 1 1 1 1 1 low 3' to cut, -1% CRZ
85 Pepper 30 30 30.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 low 10' to cut, -1% CRZ 86 Evrgreen Elm 35 25 11.6 1 1 1 1 1 med 1' to cut, -40% CRZ 87 Evrgreen Elm 30 25 11.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 low 6' to cut, -1% CRZ 89 Live Oak 30 30 13.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 low 8' to cut. -0% CRZ 90 Live Oak 35 25 15.0 1 1 1 1 1 low 9' to cut. -0% CRZ 91 Red Ironbark 60 30 18.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10' to cut
92 Red Ironbark 15 5 6.0
94 Aleppo Pine 35 35 20.0 1
A-7 C. Flame Tree 15 15 4.0 1
A-8 C. Flame Tree 15 15 4.0 1
OS-1 Canary Pine 25 20 12.0 1
OS-2 Canary Pine 25 20 12.0 1
OS-3 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1
OS-4 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1
OS-5 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1
OS-6 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1
OS-7 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1
OS-8 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1 1 canopy crosses p/l
OS-9 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1 1 canopy crosses p/l
OS-10 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1
OS-11 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1
OS-12 Canary Pine 25 20 12.0 1
OS-13 Canary Pine 25 20 12.0 1
OS-14 Strawberry 20 20 4.0 1
Subtotals 15 6 1 11 2 11 30 11
high risk, split trunk, request owner remove
350
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 6 of 9

OFFSITE BUFFER ZONE TREES TO PROTECT, ENLARGED SECTIONS OF TREE MAP TO SHOW ANALYSIS.

Tree #20 Trees 83 and 84

Trees 85 thru 87

Trees 89 thru 94
351
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 7 of 9

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analysis of the Alternate Site Plan the following recommendations are made.

These recommendation by the arborist must first be approved by the city planner.

1. Request permit to remove 40 Protected Trees

2. Provide mitigation for 40 trees/palms removed valued at $46,136

3. Review revised APPENDIX J ALTERNATE SITE PLAN ANALYSIS‐TREE LIST BY STATUS

4. Review revised APPENDIX K TREE PRESERVATION PLAN AND TASKS

5. Select a project arborist as described in Appendix K.

6. Provide to the city planner a field observation report confirming that all pre-construction tasks have been accomplished including installation of protection fencing, root pruning, canopy clearance pruning, and signs. For more see Appendix K - Preconstruction Tasks.

7. Provide to the city planner a schedule showing when the project arborist will be onsite to monitor work being done within the tree protected zone. See Appendix K for details.

8. Review all the requirements in section 9-38.050 Guidelines for Trees Associated with Urban Development. This section includes this
352
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 8 of 9

CERTIFICATION
PREMISES: Heywood Street and Erringer Road, Simi Valley, CA I, John Burke, CERTIFY to the best of my knowledge and belief:

1. That the statements of fact contained in this plant appraisal are true and correct.

2. That the appraisal analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and that they are my personal, unbiased professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions.

3. That I have no present of prospective interest in the plants that are the subject of this appraisal, and that I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.

4. That my compensation is not contingent upon predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.

Date: March 30, 2022
Landscape Architect & Registered Consulting Arborist
California Landscape Architect #5251
Registered Consulting Arborist #591 ASCA
Certified Consulting Arborist #WE-8327A ISA
Tree and Plant Appraisal Qualified
Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
353
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 9 of 9
APPENDIX A: TREE MAP- ALTERNATE SITE PLAN
Appendix A Tree Map includes one oversize 24 x 36 sheet. Oversize sheet attached as a separate document.

TREE MAP – ALTERNATE SITE PLAN
354
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 1 of 4

APPENDIX K TREE PRESERVATION PLAN AND TASKS
Four onsite trees will require protection including two street trees #1 and #19, one large Aleppo pine #21 growing in a planter in the northeast corner of the lot and one large eucalyptus #82 growing in the southwest corner.

With protection measures taken the risk of significant damage to street trees #1 and #19 is negligible. See portion of tree map shown below.

The risk of significant dieback to Aleppo pine #21 is low. See portion of tree map shown below.

355
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 2 of 4
Modifications to the grading plan eliminated the need to remove eucalyptus #82. It may still lose about a third of its absorbing roots, and may react with dieback of the canopy as a result. It should replace the lost canopy within a year and the lost roots within two years. See portion of tree map shown below.

TREE #82 PEPPERMINT EUCALYPTUS
Another twenty-six trees growing in the twenty foot buffer zone will need protection.

Nine of the trees will have grading within their protected zones and will lose some absorbing roots. The risk to eight of the nine is low with most projected to lose less that 1 percent of their roots. Tasks for all trees are summarized in the spreadsheet at the end of this appendix.

The buffer zone includes two native trees, coast live oaks #89 and 90. The oaks should lose less than 1 percent of their roots and one oak #89 will need minor pruning to clear the proposed retaining wall.
356
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 3 of 4
One of the nine trees with grading, #86 an evergreen elm, could lose up to 40 percent of its roots to excavation for the retaining wall footing. Given the young age of the ash and the tolerance of this species it should survive. The impact on the remaining trees in the buffer zone should be negligible. The existing masonry wall will protect the offsite trees growing to the west of the site.

PRECONSTRUCTION TASKS
Select a project arborist to be the liaison between the city planner and job site superintendent.

The project arborist can be selected from this office or any qualified arborist acceptable to the city.

The project arborist shall inspect the site to confirm that all pre-construction tasks have been accomplished including installation of protection fencing, root pruning, canopy clearance pruning and signs. Fencing must be at least 6 feet high, and poles must be fixed in place. Once root pruning and clearance pruning have been done, the project arborist can approve repositioning the fence at the limits of excavation. The project arborist shall provide a field observation report to the city planner indicating that all protection measures are in place.

The project arborist shall work with the job site superintendent to develop a schedule showing when the arborist will be onsite to monitor work being done within the tree protected zone.

Work that required arborist monitoring include:
• Canopy pruning
• Root pruning
• Any work that done within the fenced tree protected zone • As required by the city planner or conditions of approval The Task Table below shows what protective measures are required for each tree to be preserved and protected.
357
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 4 of 4

TREE PRESERVATION PLAN TASKS TABLE
ID# Name HT WD DBH
Fence+sign
Prune: clear
Prune:
other
Root Prune
Demo
Grading
Dust Ctrl
Monitor
Loss Risk
Notes
(CRZ = 5xDBH)
Onsite Trees to protect
1 Ginko 25 20 9.0 1 1 Street
19 Carrotwood 30 20 12 1 1 Street
21 Aleppo Pine 60 40 34 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 low Dead hanger 82 Peppermt Euc 60 50 48.0 1 1 1 1 1 low 8' to cut, -15% CRZ Offsite Buffer Zone Trees to Protect
20 Canary Pine 60 30 21.0 1 1 1 1 1 low minor root loss 83 Pepper 30 30 11.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 low 3' to cut, -10% CRZ 84 Fan Palm 30 10 0.0 1 1 1 1 1 low 3' to cut, -1% CRZ
85 Pepper 30 30 30.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 low 10' to cut, -1% CRZ 86 Evrgreen Elm 35 25 11.6 1 1 1 1 1 med 1' to cut, -40% CRZ 87 Evrgreen Elm 30 25 11.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 low 6' to cut, -1% CRZ 89 Live Oak 30 30 13.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 low 8' to cut. -0% CRZ 90 Live Oak 35 25 15.0 1 1 1 1 1 low 9' to cut. -0% CRZ 91 Red Ironbark 60 30 18.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10' to cut
92 Red Ironbark 15 5 6.0
94 Aleppo Pine 35 35 20.0 1
A-7 C. Flame Tree 15 15 4.0 1
A-8 C. Flame Tree 15 15 4.0 1
OS-1 Canary Pine 25 20 12.0 1
OS-2 Canary Pine 25 20 12.0 1
OS-3 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1
OS-4 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1
OS-5 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1
OS-6 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1
OS-7 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1
OS-8 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1 1 canopy crosses p/l
OS-9 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1 1 canopy crosses p/l
OS-10 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1
OS-11 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1
OS-12 Canary Pine 25 20 12.0 1
OS-13 Canary Pine 25 20 12.0 1
OS-14 Strawberry 20 20 4.0 1
Subtotals 15 6 1 11 2 11 30 11
high risk, split trunk, request owner remove
358
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 34 of 40
APPENDIX J ALTERNATE SITE PLAN ANALYSIS‐TREE LIST BY STATUS Given the Alternate Site Plan, one street tree #18 will be removed and the large peppermint ecucalyptus #82 will be saved. The city also explained that palms are covered by the ordiance so the appraised value of palms to remove was included with the mitigation Given the proposed layout, 59 trees from the original study are no longer impacted by the development, meaning they are beyond the 20 foot buffer zone that extends beyond the limits of the site.

Based on this new information, the trees were sorted as follows:

Total trees/palm in original study: 130.

Lists of trees‐ Protect, Remove, Buffer Zone, No Impact

ONSITE TREES TO PROTECT
ID# Name HT WD DBH Protect
Onsite
Note
Onsite Trees to protect
1 Ginko 25 20 9.0 1,750 $       Street Tree
19 Carrotwood 30 20 12 500 $          Street Tree
21 Aleppo Pine 60 40 34 9,900 $       Planter NE corner 82 Peppermt Euc 60 50 48.0 19,000 $     SW corner of site Totals $  31,150
Tree Quantity =4 39 4
359
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 35 of 40

ONSITE TREES & PALMS TO REMOVE
ID# Name DBH
Trans‐
plant?Why not? Remove
for Grading
Remove
for Other
Reason: 1=structure,
2=utility, 3=conflict,
4=health
2 Red Ironbark 12.8 no health/form $         300 structure 3 Red Ironbark 16.0 no health/form $         400
4 Red Ironbark 9.0 no health/form $            30 structure 5 Red Ironbark 25.0 no health/form $         900
6 Olive 13.9 no health/form $         210
7 Fan Palm 0.0 no health/form $         100
8 Fan Palm 0 no health/form $            10 conflict
9 Red Ironbark 29 no health/form 4,600 $
10 Red Ironbark 17 no health/form $         800
11 Red Ironbark 12 no health/form $         300
12 Pepper 20 no health/form 2,600 $
13 Fan Palm 0 no health/form $         100
14 Fan Palm 0 no health/form $            10
15 Carrotwood 12 no health/form $         500
16 Fan Palm 0 no health/form $              3
17 Fan Palm 0 no health/form $              3
18 Carrotwood 12 no health/form $         300 sidewalk change 35 Canary Pine 15 no size form $      2,000 ‐20% CRZ, stability 36 Canary Pine 24 no size form $      5,200 ‐33% CRZ, stability 37 Canary Pine 14 no size form $      1,500 ‐20% CRZ, stability 38 Canary Pine 23 no size form $      4,800 ‐33% CRZ, stability 39 Canary Pine 20 no size form $      4,600 ‐33% CRZ, stability 66 Fan Palm 0 yes $            30
67 Cottonwood 12 no health $            25
68 Cottonwood 17 no health $         100
69 Melaleuca 12 no health $      2,170
70 Melaleuca 14 no health $      1,820
71 Canary Pine 18 no size form $      1,200
72 Canary Pine 15 no size form $      1,900
73 Holly Oak 7 no health $         180
74 Fan Palm 0 yes $            40
75 Fan Palm 0 yes $            10 1, 5
76 Peppermt Euc 12 no location 300 $          1, 2, 4
77 Peppermt Euc 9 no location 200 $          1, 2, 4
78 Holly Oak 12.0 no dying 640 $
79 Fan Palm 0.0 no location 60 $
80 Peppermt Euc 10.0 no health 200 $
81 Holly Oak 13.0 no health 1,000 $
88 C. Flame Tree 8.6 no in fence 60 $
93 Melaleuca 20.8 no form 6,940 $
Totals $  45,296 $       840
Tree Quantity =40 35 5
Total Mitigation $ 46,136
360
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 36 of 40
TREES TO PROTECT IN THE 20' BUFFER
ID# Name HT WD DBH Protect 20'
Buffer
20 Canary Pine 60 30 21 4,700 $
83 Pepper 30 30 11.0 700 $
84 Fan Palm 30 10 0.0 30 $
85 Pepper 30 30 30.0 11,600 $
86 Evrgreen Elm 35 25 11.6 800 $
87 Evrgreen Elm 30 25 11.3 800 $
89 Live Oak 30 30 13.0 1,160 $
90 Live Oak 35 25 15.0 1,320 $
91 Red Ironbark 60 30 18.0 4,200 $
92 Red Ironbark 15 5 6.0 3 $
94 Aleppo Pine 35 35 20.0 2,900 $
A‐7 C. Flame Tree 15 15 4.0 100 $
A‐8 C. Flame Tree 15 15 4.0 100 $
OS‐1 Canary Pine 25 20 12.0 1,100 $
OS‐10 Pepper 25 20 12.0 2,100 $
OS‐11 Pepper 25 20 12.0 2,100 $
OS‐12 Canary Pine 25 20 12.0 1,100 $
OS‐13 Canary Pine 25 20 12.0 1,100 $
OS‐14 Strawberry 20 20 4.0 700 $
OS‐2 Canary Pine 25 20 12.0 1,100 $
OS‐3 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1,600 $
OS‐4 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1,600 $
OS‐5 Pepper 25 20 12.0 1,600 $
OS‐6 Pepper 25 20 12.0 2,100 $
OS‐7 Pepper 25 20 12.0 2,100 $
OS‐8 Pepper 25 20 12.0 2,100 $
OS‐9 Pepper 25 20 12.0 2,100 $
Dollar Subtotals $  50,913
Tree Quantity Subtotals 27
361
L·A·JOHNNY
10880 Del Norte Street #27 March 30, 2022
Ventura, California 93004
805-754-9393 [email protected] Page 37 of 40
TREES OUTSIDE IMPACT AREA: 59
ID# Name HT WD DBH Off‐site No
Impact
22 Canary Pine 70 30 23 5,700 $
23 Carrotwood 40 40 16 5,200 $
24 Carrotwood 35 35 14 1,800 $
25 Liquidambar 60 30 18 5,400 $
26 Liquidambar 60 30 15 3,400 $
27 Carrotwood 10 5 4 100 $
28 Liquidambar 60 30 16 4,300 $
29 Carrotwood 40 40 19 5,500 $
30 Magnolia 15 8 4 500 $
31 Liquidambar 50 30 10 3,000 $
32 London Plan 30 30 9 400 $
33 London Plan 30 20 8 200 $
34 London Plan 35 25 8 300 $
40 London Plan 50 40 15 1,400 $
41 C. Flame Tree 25 30 8 90 $
42 Fan Palm 45 10 0 180 $
43 Liquidambar 35 10 12 1,400 $
44 Fan Palm 35 10 0 130 $
45 Fan Palm 35 10 0 130 $
46 Fan Palm 35 10 0 130 $
47 Fan Palm 35 10 0 130 $
48 Fan Palm 35 10 0 130 $
49 Sugar Gum 40 20 13 5,600 $
50 Fan Palm 35 10 0 $            80
51 Fan Palm 15 10 0 $            40
52 Fan Palm 35 10 0 100 $
53 Fan Palm 30 10 0 $            60
54 Fan Palm 40 10 0 100 $
55 Fan Palm 25 10 0 $            60
56 Fan Palm 45 10 0 100 $
ID# Name HT WD DBH Off‐site No
Impact
57 Fan Palm 45 10 0 110 $
58 Fan Palm 25 10 0 $            70
59 Fan Palm 20 10 0 $            40
60 Fan Palm 20 10 0 $            40
61 Fan Palm 30 10 0 $            30
62 Sugar Gum 55 40 13 1,900 $
63 Sugar Gum 30 30 12 600 $
64 Fan Palm 18 10 0 $            70
65 C. Flame Tree 20 15 10 40 $
95 Aleppo Pine 35 20 15.0 1,700 $
96 Aleppo Pine 40 30 20.0 7,700 $
97 Aleppo Pine 40 30 20.0 3,700 $
98 Pepper 30 30 20.0 6,100 $
99 Pepper 30 20 20.0 3,700 $
100 Pepper 20 30 14.7 2,300 $
101 Live Oak 20 30 20.0 5,280 $
102 Fan Palm 12 10 0.0 50 $
103 Fan Palm 27 10 0.0 100 $
104 Fan Palm 5 10 0.0 30 $
105 Fan Palm 10 10 0.0 30 $
106 Fan Palm 20 10 0.0 20 $
107 Fan Palm 30 10 0.0 20 $
108 Fan Palm 25 10 0.0 30 $
A‐1 C. Flame Tree 15 15 4.0 500 $
A‐2 C. Flame Tree 15 15 4.0 500 $
A‐3 C. Flame Tree 15 15 4.0 500 $
A‐4 Water Gum 15 15 2.0 100 $
A‐5 Water Gum 15 15 2.0 100 $
A‐6 C. Flame Tree 15 15 4.0 100 $
Dollar Subtotals $  81,120
Tree Quantity 40 59
362
1 2345678 910 11 12 13 1415 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 30 323334 35 36373839 A1 40 41 DEAD 42 43 44-46 47-48 A349 50-52 53-55 56-58 A2 A4 A5 A7 A6 A8 59-61 6263 65 64 67 66 68 7069 71 73 72 74 757677 78798081 OS1 OS2 OS3 OS4 OS5 OS6 OS7 OS8 OS9 OS10 OS12 OS13 OS14 OS11 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 100 102 103 106 107 108 TREE MAP THIS TREE MAP IS BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY GRADING DATED PLAN 12/13/21 AND THE ARBORIST'S FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND THE ARCHITECTS REVISED SITE PLAN EMAILED 3/28/2022 . JOHN BURKE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT & CONSULTING ARBORIST [email protected] 805-754-9393 LOCATION: HEYWOOD STREET AND ERRINGER ROAD SIMI VALLEY, CA 1633 ERRINGER ROAD SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065 A1 YOUNG LANDSCAPE TREE LESS THAN 8" DIAMETER 1 PROTECTED TREE SYMBOL + ID NUMBER OS1 PROTECTED OFF SITE TREE 42 LEGEND PALMS CANOPY CRITICAL ROOT ZONE TRUNK DIAMETER CANOPY ADDENDUM I HATCH SHOWS CRZ TO BE REMOVED CANOPY EDGE CRZ = 5XDBH 1' FOR FRAMING CURB 363
EXHIBIT 4
Neighborhood Council
Meeting Minutes
364

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
365

Neighborhood Council
Development Review Meeting Summary
Neighborhood Council No: 3
NC Meeting Date: September 15, 2022
Project No(s): PD-S-2022-0001, Z-S-2022-0002, AHA-2022-0001 Project Description: Request to construct an 83-unit, four-story apartment building at 1850 Heywood Street
Case Planner: Elizabeth Richardson
______________________________________________________________________ Request to construct an 83-unit, four-story apartment building at 1850 Heywood Street Questions and comments from the audience and responses from the applicant:

What will the rental rates be?
A one-bedroom apartment will rent for approximately $1,800-$2,200 monthly. A twobedroom apartment will rent for approximately $2,100-$2,300 monthly.

Will the project have facilities to collect grey water? No, it will not.

Comments: One person commented that the timing of the project was bad because of lack of power and water for additional development, plus the capacity of the City’s infrastructure was already strained by existing development.

Another person expressed concern that the project will bring in primarily people from out of town. The applicant explained that approximately 80 percent of the people who moved into their two previous projects in the area came from Simi Valley addresses. They expect this project to have a similar percentage of Simi Valley residents.

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

Will the project provide jobs for residents?
Yes, they will institute a local hiring program during construction.

What percentage of the units will be affordable?
Five percent of the units will be available in the very low- income category. 366 EXHIBIT 4
Will the applicants be providing infrastructure improvements in the areas of traffic, sewer and water?
No specific improvements have been required by the City. However, the applicants will be paying traffic mitigation fees plus fees for the City to provide sewer and water to the project.

Will the project be solar powered?
The public areas will be solar powered. The individual units will use electricity.

Comments: Two Executive Board members felt that it was not physically possible to add enough solar panels to provide solar power to all residents.

Upon conclusion of the discussion, the following motion was made by Jeremy Yablan and seconded by Julie Bershin:

MOTION: Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the construction of an 83-unit, four-story apartment building at 1850 Heywood Street with the following recommendation:
• Add solar panels to supply all residents with power.

The motion carried.

Executive Board vote: 5 Ayes; 0 Noes; 1 Abstention
Audience vote: 0 Ayes; 1 No; 1 Abstention
Unincorporated Area vote: 0 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions 367
EXHIBIT 5
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration
368

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
369
EXHIBIT 5

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
Home ofThe Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

NOTICE OF THE RELEASE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND

INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION BY THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY ON Z-S2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001 TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR A .22-ACRE PORTION OF A VACANT

4.57-ACRE SITE FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO

RESIDENTIAL VERY HIGH DENSITY, IN ORDER TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW 83 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH FOUR AFFORDABLE

UNITS, AND AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
ON A 3.11-ACRE PORTION OF A 4.57-ACRE VACANT LOT
LOCATED AT 1850 HEYWOOD STREET
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the release for public review of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, for the application of Heywood Street Associates LLC. The project consists of a Zone Change (Z-S-2022-0002) from Commercial Office (CO) to Residential Very High Density (RVH) for a .22-acre portion of a 4.57-acre site, for the construction of a new 83-unit multi-family residential building (PD-S-2022-0001 ), with four affordable units, on a 3.11-acre portion of a 4.57-acre vacant lot located at 1850 Heywood Street. The project also includes a density bonus, concessions, and waivers as part of the Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA-2022-0001 ).

Based upon the results of the Initial Study prepared for the project, it has been determined that the project would not have a potential for a significant impact on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. The public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration is from October 28, 2022, through November 16, 2022. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are available for public review at www.simivalley.org/CEQA; Simi Valley City Hall, Department of Environmental Services, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road; and at the Simi Valley Public Library, 2969 Tapo Canyon Road. Copies of the studies cited in the Initial Study can be reviewed at the Department of Environmental Services, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road. Comments or questions should be directed to Elizabeth Richardson, Department of Environmental Services, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063-2100; [email protected], or at (805) 583-6334.

No Public Hearing has been set at this time.

SEAN GIBSON, Deputy Environmental
Services Director/ City Planner
Department of Environmental Services
Elizabeth Richardson, Associate Planner
[email protected] (805) 583-6334
Department of Environmental Services
Keith L. Mashburn, Mayor Elaine P. Litster, Mayor Pro Tern Mike Judge, Council Member Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Council Member Ruth Luevanos, Council Member P 20/10-22(sy) 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063-2 7 99 805.583.6700 www.simivalley.org 370

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
Home ofThe Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
REVIEW PERIOD: October 28, 2022 - November 16, 2022
TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

All Interested Parties
Department of Environmental Services

REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZONE CHANGE
(Z-S-2022-0002) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
(PD-S-2022-0001) AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
(AHA-2022-0001 ), TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR A .22-ACRE
PORTION OF A VACANT 4.57-ACRE SITE FROM COMMERCIAL

OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL VERY HIGH DENSITY, IN ORDER TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW 83-UNIT MUL Tl-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING WITH FOUR AFFORDABLE UNITS, WITH AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT ON A 3.11-ACRE
PORTION OF A 4.57-ACRE VACANT LOT LOCATED AT 1850

HEYWOOD STREET
The attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study have been forwarded to you for possible comments relating to your specific area of interest. Comments should be directed to:

Elizabeth Richardson, Associate Planner
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, California 93063
(805) 583-6334 / [email protected]
Keith L. Mashburn, Mayor Elaine P. Litster, Mayor Pro Tern Mike Judge, Council Member Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Council Member Ruth Luevanos, Council Member 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063-2 7 99 805.583.6700 www.simivalley.org MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 371
2 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) Copies sent to:

City Council
City Manager
City Attorney’s Office
Planning Commission
City Departments:

City Manager’s Office
City Clerk
Environmental Services
Deputy Director/City Planner
Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator
Case Planner Elizabeth Richardson
Neighborhood Council Coordinator
Neighborhood Council #3
Recording Secretary
Counter Copy
Public Works Department
Engineering
Utilities
Maintenance
Simi Valley Library (2)
County of Ventura
Resource Mgmt. Agency
Watershed Protection District
Fire Protection District
LAFCO
Other Government Agencies
State Clearinghouse
(https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov)

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SCAG Clearinghouse
Calleguas Municipal Water District
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
City of Moorpark
City of Thousand Oaks
Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Simi Valley Unified School District
Native American Heritage Commissions
Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians

Applicant:

Heywood Street Associates LLC
Attn: Chris Itule
920 Hampshire Road, Suite A4
Westlake Village, CA 91361
372
3 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy)

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT)
REVIEW PERIOD: October 28, 2022 – November 16, 2022
APPLICANT: Heywood Street Associates LLC
Attn: Chris Itule
920 Hampshire Road, Suite A4
Westlake Village, CA 91361
CASE PLANNER: Elizabeth Richardson, Associate Planner

ENVIRONMENTAL
PLANNER: Elizabeth Richardson, Associate Planner
PROJECT NO.: Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/ /AHA-2022-0001 (The Churchill Apartments)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ZONE CHANGE, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT TO CHANGE THE
ZONING FOR A .22-ACRE PORTION OF THE SITE FROM

COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL VERY HIGH
DENSITY IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 83-UNIT

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH FOUR

AFFORDABLE UNITS WITH DENSITY BONUS
CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS ON A 3.11-ACRE PORTION
OF A VACANT 4.57-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 1850

HEYWOOD STREET
PROJECT LOCATION: 1850 Heywood Street, Simi Valley, CA 93065 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. 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. 373
4 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 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 VCAPCD meteorologist for current information about average wind speeds).
vi. All materials transported off site must be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

I-2 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-3 Project grading plans must show 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 mitigation measure will be subject to periodic inspections of construction equipment by the Public Works Department.

I-4 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-5 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-6 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-7 To avoid disturbance of nesting and special status birds, including raptor species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), activities related to the project including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, construction, and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 30), if feasible. If construction must begin during the breeding season, then a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot inside the project site boundary, including a 300-foot buffer (500-foot for raptors), and in inaccessible areas (e.g. private lands) from afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in Southern California. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. If a raptor nest is observed in a tree proposed for removal, the Applicant must consult with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). All construction personnel shall be 374
5 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and instructed to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is complete, and the young have fledged the next.

I-8 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:
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 construction-staging 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. viii. 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.

I-9 If cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall assess the find. Work on the portion of the Projects outside the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. The Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI) shall be contacted about any precontact and/or post-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes their initial assessment of the nature of the find, to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

I-10 Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), the Project applicant shall retain a professional Native American monitor procured by the FTBMI to observe all remaining ground-disturbing 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.
375
1-11 The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with the FTBMI on the disposition and treatment of any Tribal Cultural Resource encountered during all ground-disturbing activities.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: None
TRUSTEE AGENCIES: None
Planner
6 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001 /AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 376
7 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy)

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

PLANNING DIVISION

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

INITIAL STUDY

1. Project Title: The Churchill Apartments (PD-S-2022-
0001/Z-S-2022-0002/AHA-2022-0001)

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: Elizabeth Richardson (805) 583-6334 [email protected]

4. Project Location: 1850 Heywood Street, Simi Valley, CA 93065

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Heywood Street Associates LLC Attn: Chris Itule
920 Hampshire Road, Suite A4
Westlake Village, CA 91361

6. Current General Plan Designation: Very High Density Residential and Office Commercial

7. Current Zoning: Residential Very High Density (RVH) and Commercial Office (CO)

8. Description of Project:

The Applicant, Heywood Street Associates LLC, proposes to construct a four-story, 83-unit apartment building on a 3.11-acre portion of a 4.57-acre vacant lot located on the south side of Heywood Street, west of Erringer Road (1850 Heywood Street). The project includes an Affordable Housing Agreement for the provision of four affordable units (5%) set aside to verylow-income qualified renters. A small portion of the site (.22 acres) will be rezoned from Commercial Office to Residential Very High Density.

The 83-unit apartment complex will be four stories, with the fourth story component located at the rear of the building. The building will include 45 one-bedroom units ranging in size between 800 and 810 square feet and 38 two-bedroom units ranging in size between 1,022 and 1,463 square feet.

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

The project will include amenities for the residents such as a swimming pool, fitness center, community room, media room, and common areas
The request includes a zone change to modify the zoning of the northwesterly 0.22-acre portion of the site from Commercial Office (CO) to Residential Very High Density (RVH). The purpose of the zone change is to incorporate a portion of the property previously used as access to the adjacent property, also zoned CO, into the overall site design of the new apartment complex. 377
8 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) Affordable Housing
The Applicant is providing four affordable housing units for the very low-income qualified renters (5%). Per Government Code Section 65915, this qualifies the project for a 20% density bonus, modified parking requirements, one concession, and multiple waivers as long as the waivers do not impose a life or safety hazard.

The applicant has requested one Concession to increase the allowable building height from 40 feet to 45 feet 6 inches and a waiver to allow four stories instead of three stories. The Applicant proposes to mitigate the additional building height and additional story by locating the additional massing at the southern (rear) portion of the building.

Additionally, State Density Bonus Law Concessions reduce the parking ratios for affordable housing projects. The project proposes four very-low-income units making the project eligible for reduced parking. For one-bedroom units, the State’s parking calculation is 1 parking space per unit, and for two-bedroom units the State’s parking calculation is 1.5 spaces per unit.

Bedrooms Parking Calculation Required Parking Spaces
1-bedroom (45 units) 1 space per unit x 45 units 45 parking spaces 2-bedroom (38 units) 1.5 spaces per unit x 38 units 57 parking spaces Guest Parking None Required None Required
Total Parking Spaces 102 parking spaces
By State Law the project must provide 102 parking spaces for tenants and no guest parking is required. The project will have a surplus of 29 parking spaces.

The applicant is requesting four Waivers that include: 1) increase number of stories from 3 to 4 stories, 2) reduction of the 10-foot wide landscaping buffer along Heywood Street to 5 feet 2 inches, 3) increased walking distance to trash enclosures, and 4) increased walking distance to tenant parking spaces

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The overall 4.57-acre site is vacant but was previously developed as a hospital campus.

Vegetation on the site consists of remaining ornamental trees and weedy areas, and the terrain is generally level. Heywood Street and medical buildings exist to the north and northeast of the site, a senior apartment building exists to the west, Erringer Road to the east with a townhouse development beyond, and the Arroyo Simi borders the site to the south with Rancho Simi Park beyond. A multi-use recreation trail runs along the south boundary as well.

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

None

11. Date Deemed Complete/Ready to Process: August 12, 2022

12. A site inspection was performed on:

Date: September 30, 2022 By: Elizabeth Richardson, Associate Planner 378
9 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy)

13. Are any of the following studies required? ("Yes" or "No" response required) Yes Traffic Study
No 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
No Archaeological/Cultural Resource Study
No Historical Study
No Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
No Other (List): ____________________

14. Location Map
379
10 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy)

15. Aerial Photograph

16. Site Plan

380
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

This project would potentially affect the environmental factor(s) marked "Yes" below, involving at least one impact that is "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:

Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:
�
�
Yes
�
�
�
�
Yes
�
�
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[8J I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

D I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. to(i"/zJ..

Date Sean Gibson, Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner 11 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) No
No
Yes
Yes
__NQ__
__NQ__
__NQ__
__NQ__
__NQ__
381
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 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 project is proposed on a 3.11-acre portion of a previously graded 4.57-acre parcel, all of which is relatively level. Based on a review of the site plan for the project, a three and four story multi-family residential development consisting of 83 apartment units, will be constructed on the west portion of the vacant site. In addition, the project site is located on the valley floor, surrounded by urban uses, and the area was previously graded. Therefore, the project would not obstruct any scenic vistas or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding, 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. The site is vacant and there are no historic buildings located on the property. 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 a 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 site 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.
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 fixtures on the new buildings, along the private driveways and in the parking areas; however, lighting on the property is required to adhere to SVMC Section 9-30.040 (Exterior Light and Glare), which states that “there shall be no illumination or glare from the exterior lighting system onto adjacent properties or streets.” 382
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) Light fixtures will be no more than 14 feet in height, and shall possess sharp cut-off qualities, at the property line. The applicant is required to submit an exterior lighting (photometric) plan pursuant to SVMC Section 9-30.040(C). 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 or streets. Therefore, there would be 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 Williamson Act contract is located approximately 3 miles north of the project site. The proposed 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 nonforest users. 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.

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?
383
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 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 the formation of air pollution, including ozone. Based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) CalEEMod air quality analysis program, the project would generate 2.74 pounds per day of ROG and 0.31 pounds per day of NOx. The calculated net quantities do not exceed the threshold of 25 pounds per day ROG or NOx. In addition to the project-specific thresholds, Section 3.3.1, Criteria Pollutants, 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 ROC [Reactive Organic Compounds], or two pounds per of NOx that is found to be inconsistent with the AQMP will have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact.” (Ref. #3). Since the project exceeds two pounds per day of ROG and NOx, a determination of the project’s consistency with the Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan (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 current population does not exceed the VCAQMP forecasted population (Ref. #3). 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 183 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 of 183 people that 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 the 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 VCAQMP. 384
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 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 residential and commercial uses, including commercial office buildings to the north and east along Heywood Street and Erringer Road, and multi-family residential to the west on Heywood Street. To the south is the Arroyo Simi and Rancho Simi Community Park. The nearest sensitive receptors who may be impacted by emissions of air pollution due to the Project include the residential uses immediately to the west of the project site.

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 exclusively of housing, the project would not include sources of substantive toxic air contaminant 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 construction vehicles and soil-hauling trucks, in addition to ROG that would be released during the drying phase upon the 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 threshold 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 the fugitive dust through dust control measures. Fugitive dust control measures are required by VCAPCD 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) contents, 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. 385
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) As such, the project will not result in other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

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 VCAPCD meteorologist for current information about average wind speeds).
• All materials transported off-site must be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

AQ-2 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-3: Project grading plans must show 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 mitigation measure will be subject to periodic inspections of construction equipment by the Public Works Department.

AQ-4: 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.

AQ-5: All trucks that will haul excavated or graded material on site must comply with California Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to subsections 386
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 23114(b)(2)(F), (e)(2), and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads.

AQ-6: 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.

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, 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 has been previously graded and disturbed, for use as a commercial development. 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. #38), the project site contains 44 mature trees, 40 of which will be removed for site improvements. The trees to be removed consist of 10 Fan Palm, 7 Red Ironbark, 7 Canary Island Pine, 3 Melaleuca, 3 Holly Oak, 3 Peppermint Eucalyptus, 2 Carrotwood, 2 Cottonwood, 1 Flame Tree, 1 Pepper, and 1 Olive Tree. The project will be required to provide replacement trees with a value equal to that of the removed trees.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. 387
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) The proposed project would result in the removal of ornamental vegetation and mature trees onsite. Thus the project could result in potential impacts to nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA prohibits activities that result in the direct take (defined as killing or possession) of a migratory bird. The proposed project has the potential to impact nesting birds if construction activities occur during the nesting bird season.

BIO-1: To avoid disturbance of nesting and special status birds, including raptor species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), activities related to the project including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, construction, and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 30), if feasible. If construction must begin during the breeding season, then a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot inside the project site boundary, including a 300-foot buffer (500-foot for raptors), and in inaccessible areas (e.g. private lands) from afar using binoculars to the extent practical.

The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in Southern California. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. If a raptor nest is observed in a tree proposed for removal, the Applicant must consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and instructed to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is complete, and the young have fledged the next.

Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from adverse effects of 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 site is currently vacant, but was previously developed as a hospital facility. Extensive grading occurred with the previous use of the site which would likely have compromised any potential archaeological resources. (However, please refer to Section XVIII for discussion of Tribal Cultural Resources). The site is not listed in the Ventura County Historical Landmarks and Points of Interest (Ref. #7). Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from a substantial adverse change to historical and archeological resources. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

388
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
19 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) Section 7050.5 of the California Health 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 less than significant 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 (SV-CAP) that identifies energy reduction measures, including a requirement that new development exceed 2008 Title 24 Part 6 Energy Standards by 20%, as well as water use reduction measures to reduce water demand by 20%. 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).

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% to 15% 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-and-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% 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:
389
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
20 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 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. #37), and based on the State of California Earthquake Fault Zone 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 project 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. #37), 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 engineers recommendations included in the report, are implemented. Those recommendations will need to be implemented in order for the Public Works Department to finalize the grading permits 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?

According to the preliminary geotechnical report the project site is underlain by soils that could liquefy or result in lateral spread under certain conditions. The report indicates there are a variety of methods available to reduce the threat and the exact method will be determined with approval of the building plans. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact to the environment from exposure of people or structures, to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving unstable or expansive soil.
iv) Landslides?
Based on the site inspection, the site is not near large slopes that could pose a significant risk to the site. 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, landslides are not considered a hazard for 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 landscaping for the lifetime of the project. This will lower the amount of exposed soil that could 390
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
21 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) be eroded. In addition, the project is required to adhere to Section 9-64.030(C) (Grading and 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?
A geotechnical engineering report was prepared for the project site (Ref. #37). The City’s geotechnical engineer has reviewed and accepted the report and the recommendations to address the potential for liquefaction under the project site. The report confirms that the site is underlain by soils that could liquefy or result in lateral spread under certain conditions. The report indicates that a variety of methods are available to reduce the threat from unstable soils. The exact method will be determined with approval of the final building plans. The California Building Code requires that measures be implemented to reduce threats from unstable soils. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact to the environment.
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? The geotechnical site evaluation of the property (Ref. #37) evaluated the suitability of the site soils for the proposed construction. The report recommends installation of stone columns below the proposed structure to mitigate the effects of liquefaction and to improve the underlying weak soils for support of the proposed foundation system. In addition, stone columns or soil mixing is to be utilized to create a buttress along the southern property line.

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.
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 systems. 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 less than significant impact to the environment from the direct or indirect destruction or a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature.
391
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
22 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 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. 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, which 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 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 the 1990 levels by 2020. The annual net GHG emissions associated with the operation of the project is 66.88 MTCO2e/year.

This is less than the SCAQMD screening threshold for mixed use projects of 3,000 MTCO2e/year.

As part of the recent 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 to 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%, and water use reduction measures to reduce water demand by 20%. 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% respectively, for new construction and substantial remodels. Chapter 9-39 of the City of Simi Valley Development Code promotes trip and alternative transportation methods (e.g., carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles, walking, park and ride lots, improvements in the 392
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
23 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 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% below the 2009 baseline.

They 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. They City’s adopting Ordinance 1167 goes further by including a CEC-approved energy reach code, additional landscape water conservation, and increased recycling.

Based on all the above information, the project would not result in a significant impact with respect to GHG emissions or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

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?

(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). These regulations limit the amount of hazardous materials that can be stored in these facilities in order to ensure public safety.

Therefore, there would be no potential for a significant impact to the public or the environment from the routine transport, use, disposal, or release of hazardous materials into the environment, or from the emissions or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
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 would be no impact to the environment due to location on a listed hazardous materials site.
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 393
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
24 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 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 16 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 multi-family residential development consisting of 83 apartment units on a 3.11-acre portion of a 4.57-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 Heywood Street, for emergency response organizations, and the property is already included in the City’s emergency response and evacuation plan. Development of the property has been anticipated by these plans and there is no need to amend the existing procedures. Therefore, there would be 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). Therefore there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from exposure of people or structures to wildland fires.

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, 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, 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 the site would not violate any water quality standards. Therefore, there is no potential for a 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 394
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
25 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 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 currently vacant but was previously developed. According to the Preliminary Drainage Report for the project (Ref. #36), a new storm drain system will be constructed to collect stormwater within the project area. The storm drains will be placed in the southeast and southwest corners of the project, site and will collect water from the entire project site. Drainage is conveyed by curb and gutter and ribbon gutters into storm drains, and inlets located at the southern end of the project site. Water will be treated in the subgrade storage through a gravel system to treat the peak flows to predevelopment conditions. Once treated the water will be discharged into the Arroyo Simi via two existing outfalls, located at the southern end of the project 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 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 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 the design of the grading and drainage infrastructure will provide for adequate drainage from the site. 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 discharge 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?
395
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
26 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) The State NPDES MS4 permit requires all new development to treat the “first flush” of all storms. The Preliminary Drainage Report submitted for the project (Ref. #36) has calculated the storm water 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 curb and gutter, and ribbon gutters. The water will be directed to the on-site detention system which will collect 100% of the Q100 flow rate. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact on the environment from exceeding the capacity of existing 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. #36), the site will drain to an on-site 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 project will substantially contain flood flow, over current developed conditions. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from impeding or redirecting flows. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Based on examination of federal Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], Flood Insurance Rate Map [FIRM], Community Panel Number 06111C0844E, January 20, 2010) and the Preliminary Drainage Report for the project (Ref. #36), the project is within an area subject to the 100-year flood (Flood Zone AO). Prior to issuance of grading permits the site will be required to receive a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to remove the property from the 100 year flood plain. Additionally, based on review of the Bard Reservoir inundation map (Ref. #22) and the Las Llajas inundation map (Ref. #23) the site is not located in an area that could be affected by the failure of either dam. 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 no potential for a significant impact on the environment due to flooding 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. #36), 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 396
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
27 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 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 and residential uses on all sides. 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? The proposed project involves construction of a new 83 unit apartment building. The current General Plan land use is Residential Very High Density and Commercial Office. The project site is zoned Very High Density Residential (RVH) and Commercial Office (CO). The applicant has applied for a zone change from CO to RVH in order to facilitate the construction of the new multifamily project over the entire project site. The resulting Residential Very High Density designation would be the same as that of the project site, and is consistent with the High Density Zoning in the surrounding neighborhood, particularly of the multifamily residential develop to the west and north of the project site. The resulting project would be comparable in size to those multifamily residential projects in the surrounding neighborhood.

The future multi-family development will meet the standards of the City of Simi Valley Development Code and Design Guidelines. These standards are established to require consistent and compatible development between adjoining properties, including minimum setbacks, height, and compatible architecture
Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact from conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

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 alluvial sediment. 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).
397
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
28 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 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). 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 resources.

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 in a residential neighborhood, which are considered to be noise sensitive land uses, not generators of excessive noise. The City of Simi Valley General Plan establishes noise standards for noise sensitive land uses of 45 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) (a time-weighted 24 hour average noise level based on the Aweighted decibel) for interior, and 63 dBA CNEL for private outdoor living areas. One source for 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 traffic study prepared for the project (Ref. #39) estimated 559 average daily trips which does not double the existing average daily trips of 2,300 existing on Heywood Street. The additional trips would increase traffic noise by less than 1 dBA, which would not be a noticeable change at existing noise sensitive receptors.

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. Therefore, there would be no potential for a significant impact to the environment from exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or Noise Ordinance.

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.
398
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
29 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) • 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.
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?

The City of Simi Valley has not adopted vibration guidelines or standards, neither as part of the General Plan nor Simi Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Estimated ground-borne vibrations levels are based upon noise levels report 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. 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 toward 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. 399
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
30 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 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 23 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.

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 property is located in an urban area of the City. There is no need for additional public roads, utilities, or other public infrastructure to serve the project site. The project would not add any new public infrastructure, but would result in the creation of 83 residential units. Based on the General Plan EIR standard of 2.98 persons per dwelling unit, the proposed residential project would increase the population by approximately 247 people. Based on a City population of 126,380, this 0.2% increase would not be considered substantial population growth. Therefore, there would be no potential for a 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) 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 approximately 1.8 miles from Ventura County Fire Protection District Station Number 41, located at 1910 Church Street. Due to the existing roads, the short distance from the station to the project site, and level topography from the station to the site, 400
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
31 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) the Fire Department 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 time to emergency calls is an average of 3.2 minutes and non-emergency response times is an average of 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 would be no potential for a substantial impact associated with new facilities or personnel related to police services.

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 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 issuance of building permits.

The need for public facilities is based on the demand generated by the population. The project would result in the creation of 83 residential units with the potential to cause a population increase of 253 people. This would not be considered a substantial population increase. Since the project would not result in a significant population increase, there would be no potential for a significant impact on public services or facilities including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or recreational facilities.

Therefore, there would be 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, 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.

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?

401
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
32 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) (a-b) Based on the answer to question XV a) (Public Services – 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 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 issuance of building permits. Therefore, there would be 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? 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 potentially 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.

That 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 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 deem 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. 402
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
33 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) • Projects located with mapped areas of 5% below the City’s background VMT, as determined by the City Transportation Analysis Model.

City Staff determined the VMT of the adjacent parcels would fall below the City’s threshold of

16.15 VMT per capita for residential-based trips, or 5% less than the background VMT of 17.0 VMT per capita. The project would therefore be screened from a VMT analysis and as such, there are no project-specific impacts and no mitigation measures required.

Therefore, the projects potential impacts on the environment related to a conflict or inconsistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) would be less than significant.
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 from Heywood 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 standard 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
403
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
34 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) (a-b) The project site was previously graded and developed with a hospital building that has since been demolished. The previous development would likely have compromised any potential tribal cultural resources. The project included a consultant 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 Gabrielino-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians state the site may 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 Fernandeno Tataviam 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.

TCR-1 If cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall assess the find. Work on the portion of the Projects outside the buffered area may continue during this assessment period.

The Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI) shall be contacted about any pre-contact and/or post-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes their initial assessment of the nature of the find, to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

TCR-2 Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), the Project applicant shall retain a professional Native American monitor procured by the FTBMI to observe all remaining ground-disturbing 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.

TCR-3 The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with the 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 83 apartment units 404
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
35 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) would produce approximately 22,825 gallons of sewage per day (equivalent to 0.023 mgd).

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 and 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 Southern California Edison 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 Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 (District). Calleguas Municipal Water District (Calleguas) supplies most of the District’s water. The District also extracts groundwater for treatment and use as potable water, for use as untreated non-potable water, and purveys recycled water.

The District’s most recent Urban Water Management Plan forecasts demand of 27,975 acrefeet per year (AFY) in 2035, which is essentially the build-out demand of the District under the current City of Simi Valley’s and County of Ventura’s General Plans. The project is consistent with the Simi Valley General Plan. Calleguas’ current Urban Water Management Plan assures that the demands of all purveyors they serve, including the District, can be met through 2035 in all but the most extreme circumstances. In addition, the District plans to diversify resources by increased local water production and water recycling.

The District’s current estimated annual demand is 22,760 AFY. The proposed project is forecasted to have a water demand of 2.64 AFY. The difference between current demand and projected year-2035 demand, is 5,215 AFY. The forecasted project demands are within the planned increased demand range. The District’s and Calleguas’ planning documents therefore support that the demand created by the proposed project will have sufficient resources as supply, without additional entitlements. 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. 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 83 apartment units would produce approximately 22,825 gallons of sewage per day. Currently, the City’s 405
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
36 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 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 reach 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% 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), and is also not identified to be located within a CalFire Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Ref. #35). 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. 406
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
37 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to the environment from the effects of wildland fires.

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 the 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 Section 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)? The proposed 83 apartment units on an undeveloped property, substantially surrounded by commercial and residential uses, and the Zoning Designation change to the site, are consistent with the surrounding uses. As discussed in the above evaluations, the project would result in a minimal net increase in the number of vehicle trips and associated air pollutant emissions. The project would not result in a significant increase in population in the City leading to unexpected growth, and thus would not increase the need for public services, recreation facilities, or utilities. The project would be required to comply with applicable regulations for water quality, stormwater management, and structural/foundation code requirements. The potential for the project to impact unknown tribal cultural resources, would be limited to disturbance of the project site only, which would be less than significant with identified mitigation, and would not represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to the potential for other projects to affect tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the potential for the project to substantially contribute to environmental impacts that are cumulatively considerable would be less than significant.
407
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
38 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 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 in Section 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 material site. Based on the answers to questions in Section X (a-e), the project would not have a significant impact due to erosion, flooding and polluted runoff. Based on the answers to questions in Section VII (a-f), the project would not have a significant impact due to surface rupture, seismic ground failure, or landslides. Based on the answer to questions in Section XIII (a-c) the project would not have a significant impact on the environment due to the exposures of persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, the increase of ambient noise by 3dBA 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. 408
39 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy) 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.

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 06111C0844E, 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. 409
40 MND Z-S-2022-0002/PD-S-2022-0001/AHA-2022-0001, Heywood Street Associates LLC (sy)

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), p. 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.

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

36. Delane Engineering, Preliminary Drainage Report for Simi Valley Housing 3, January 2022

37. Geotechnologies, Inc, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Apartment Development 1850 Heywood Street, Simi Valley California, December 22, 2021

38. LAJohnny, Arborist Report: Heywood Street and Erringer Road Project, December 29, 2021

39. Associated Transportation Engineers, Heywood Street Apartment Project Traffic and Circulation Study, November 30, 2021
XXIII. LIST BELOW THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO PREPARED OR PARTICIPATED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY.

Case Planner: Elizabeth Richardson
Environmental Planner: Elizabeth Richardson
Project Engineer: Brent Siemer
Traffic Engineer: Justin Link
410

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
411
EXHIBIT 6
Letter from Applicant Requesting
Incentives and Waivers
412

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
413
Heywood Street Associates LLC
920 Hampshire Road
Suite A4
Westlake Village, CA 91361
805.379.5005
June 10, 2022
Stratis Perros, AICP
Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner
Department of Environmental Services
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA 93063
RE: Density Bonus Application
The Churchill 1850 Heywood Street, Simi Valley, CA
Dear Mr. Perros:

Heywood Street Associates, LLC hereby submits this density bonus proposal for the City’s consideration and approval. Our team has worked on the formulation of this proposal to ensure that it conforms with the latest amendments to Government Code Section 65915-65918 (State Density Bonus Law).

We have worked with our project team including the project architect, Michael Stahlheber, with the goal of complying with the City’s Code to the extent feasible, consistent with State Density Bonus Law. With that goal in mind, the purpose of this letter is to facilitate your review of the density bonus proposal for The Churchill Apartments Project.

A. Density Bonus
This is Phase 1 of a 4.72 development. This is a portion of the site which will be 3.11 acres and the zoning for the project site is RVH, which calls for a density of 21.1 to 35 dwelling units to the acre. Thus, the base density for this site is 78 dwelling units. (25 units x 3.11 acres = 77.75). Please note that under Govt. Code § 65915(f)(5) all density calculations resulting in fractional units are rounded up to the next whole number. The developer proposes to include four very low income units (5% of the total), which entitles them to a 20% density bonus. [Govt. Code § 65915(f)(2); SVMC § 9-31.020.A.1.] The up to 20% density bonus entitles the project to include an additional 5 units.

B. Concessions/Incentives
Density bonus projects are also entitled to receive between one and three incentives or concessions, depending on the level of affordability. In this case, since the developer proposes to restrict 5% of the units for occupancy to very low income households at affordable rents, the project qualifies for one concession and a unlimited amount of waivers. [Govt. Code § 65915(d)(2)(B); SVMC § 9-31.020.B.1].

For your information, consistent with State Density Bonus Law, a concession includes any “reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code.” [See Govt. Code § 65915(k)(1).].
414 EXHIBIT 6
Gov. Code § 65915(k) also outlines three categories of concessions or incentives that developers may request. I note that SVMC § 9.31.020.B.2 contains an exclusive list of the incentives/concessions that may be requested, and further limits the request to an arbitrary percentage reduction or increase in the specified development standard.

It appears that this portion of the City’s Ordinance is inconsistent with the current state of density bonus law both because of the exclusivity of the list of incentives and the arbitrary cap on the percentage reduction/increase in the development standards. In any event, we have been able to design the project in conformance with the City’s ordinance.

The one requested concession includes:

1. Increase in the allowable building height from 40 feet to 45.6 feet. This increase of 5.6 feet is necessary in order to accommodate the parapets for screening of equipment and the safety of people working on the roof. This increase in the building height is in keeping with the City’s 20% allowable increase in the maximum allowed building height set forth in § 9-31.020.B.2.b.This concession will increase the number of stories from 3 stories to 4 stories.

C. Parking Concessions
Consistent with Govt. Code § 65915, the developer hereby requests that the City apply the parking ratios set forth in subdivision (p)(1), i.e. one onsite parking space for each one bedroom unit; and two onsite parking spaces for each two bedroom unit. Please note that under subdivision (p)(1), the required parking spaces include both handicap and guest parking.

In addition, consistent with the mandate in Govt. Code § 65915(p)(4), the developer is allowed to meet the parking requirements by providing onsite parking through tandem parking or uncovered parking.

Incentives/Waivers
D. Landscape Waiver Govt. Code § 9.33.030(B).

The developer hereby requests a waiver for the requirement for a 10’ wide landscape area along the street-facing property line. Govt. Code § 9.33.030(B). This is necessary to accommodate adequate parking along the streetfacing side of the property which contains the entrance, lobby, and mail/delivery area. In order to discourage street parking, we need to provide as much guest parking as possible on our site. The site design cannot be changed to accommodate this landscaped area without losing parking spaces which would decrease the number of market-rate and affordable units.

E. Walking Distance Waiver SVMC number SECTION 9-34.040 E1 & E3 The developer hereby requests a waiver for a 250’ distance from the apartment entry door to the trash enclosure.

Govt. Code § 9-35.050 (D)(1). In order to accommodate the number of parking spaces necessary for the building, we have one central trash enclosure area which necessitates this wavier. A reduction in parking spaces would reduce the overall number of units which then would decrease the number of affordable units we are providing to the city of Simi Valley.

The developer hereby requests a waiver for a 200’ distance from tenant parking to the apartment entry door.

Govt. Code § 9-34.040(E) This site had been designed to accommodate the most amount of surface parking possible under the present conditions without creating subterranean parking which would not be economically possible, nor would it be feasible given the condition of the soils. We assigned the parking in a very efficient manner, however, some units still fall outside of the current standard of distance making this waver necessary.

Again, we want to provide as many affordable units to the city as possible and this wavier allows for us to fit the required density to provide the aforementioned amount of affordable units.

F. Building Story Waiver SVMC Section 9-24.050.

The developer hereby requests a waiver to increase the number of stories in the rear portion of the site from 3 stories to 4 stories. 9-24.050. The additional 4th story allows for additional apartments which allows the project economic viable. 415
G. Application content
Govt. Code § 65915(a)(3) mandates that density bonus applications must be processed expeditiously, and sets forth the manner in which local government is to comply with this mandate, including the procedures and time lines for processing density bonus applications. In accordance with subparagraph (3)(B), the jurisdiction is to “[p]rovide a list of all documents and information required to be submitted with the density bonus application to be deemed complete,” and the list is to be consistent with state density bonus law.

In light of this provision, it is my informed opinion that SVMC § 91-31.030.B.2, i.e. the City’s requirement for a complete pro forma for the proposed project, is unenforceable because it is obsolete, irrelevant, and contrary to current provisions of density bonus law.2 Please note that no showing of the need for a density bonus has to be made in order to qualify for a density bonus. The granting of a density bonus is mandatory for housing developments meeting the criteria of § 65915(b)(1), and the amount of the bonus is mandatory, based on the percentage of affordable housing units as set forth in subdivision (f).

With respect to the granting of concessions and incentives, the law is very clear that a jurisdiction must grant the requested concession or incentive unless it makes one of three statutorily prescribed written findings, based upon substantial evidence. A pro forma would not assist the City, nor would it be necessary in order for the City to make any of these findings. Also, please note that subdivision (j)(1) makes clear that a jurisdiction may not require a study, such as a pro forma. Instead, the jurisdiction may require “reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for the concession or incentive or to demonstrate that the incentive or concession meets the definition set forth in subdivision (k).” In this case, where the developer has chosen its concessions from the exclusive list of concessions contained in the City’s Code, it is logical to assume that no additional documentation would be necessary or required. However, for the record, these concessions are consistent with the purpose of the statute as delineated in subdivision (k)(1), i.e. to allow the development to provide for affordable rents for the four very low income units. These units will be floating in the project and determined in the AHA Agreement.

I trust this letter will assist the City in its review of the density bonus proposal. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter, please feel free to give me a call at the above telephone number.

Sincerely,
Chris Itule
Heywood Street Associates, LLC
cc: Michael Stahlheber, AIA, Flewelling & Moody
416
S1
ZS20220001, PDS20220001, AHA20220001 PC Staff Report Supplemental (sy)

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
November 23, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Department of Environmental Services
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 11.A.1 TO

CONSIDER A ZONE CHANGE, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT,

AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT TO CHANGE THE ZONING
OF A .22-ACRE PORTION OF A 4.57-ACRE SITE FROM COMMERCIAL

OFFICE (CO) TO RESIDENTIAL VERY HIGH DENSITY (RVH) IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 83-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING WITH FOUR AFFORDABLE UNITS AND AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AGREEMENT, LOCATED AT 1850 HEYWOOD STREET, AND

ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE SUBJECT APPLICATIONS Subsequent to preparation of the staff report, the following comments were received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comments and staff’s responses are provided below.

1. Comment letter from Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians dated November 1, 2022 (Attachment 1).
a. Comment: On behalf of the Cultural Resource Management (CRM) Division of the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI), thank you for the opportunity to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Z-S-2022- 0002, PD-S-2022-0001, AHA-2022-0001. The tribe agrees with the Mitigated Measures and has no further comments.

Staff Response: Thank you for your comment.

2. Comment letter from Simi Valley Medical Partnership (SVMP) received November 15, 2022 (Attachment 2).
a. SVMP Comment: Project Description – CEQA requires that a MND include an accurate, stable and finite project description. The MND provides an inaccurate and incomplete project description. By way of example, the MND never mentions the parking that exists on the Project site and instead misleadingly asserts the Project site is entirely vacant; and includes inconsistent disclosures regarding the population increase associated with the project.

SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA ITEM NO.

11.A.1
417
S1-2
ZS20220001, PDS20220001, AHA20220001 PC Staff Report Supplemental (sy) Staff Response: Simi Valley Municipal Code Section 9-80 (V) defines a “vacant parcel” as any single legal parcel which is not currently developed.

The project site was described as vacant due to it not being developed, since there are no structures located on the property. Also, the project description states that “…The purpose of the zone change is to incorporate a portion of the property previously used as access to the adjacent property, also zoned CO, into the overall site design of the new apartment complex”. Staff will update the project description in both the Description of Project and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting sections to include the existing parking lot described in this comment letter, and noted as follows:

Page 7 ends

Item 8 Paragraph 1 – Description of Project
The Applicant, Heywood Street Associates LLC, proposes to construct a fourstory, 83-unit apartment building on a 3.11-acre portion of a 4.57-acre vacant lot. The lot contains an 18-space parking lot, including a driveway leading to 9 parking spaces, on an adjacent property at the front of the site but is otherwise vacant of any structures. The existing parking lot is used by the medical office building located across Heywood Street. The site is located on the south side of Heywood Street, west of Erringer Road (1850 Heywood Street). The project includes an Affordable Housing Agreement for the provision of four affordable units (5%) set aside to very-low-income qualified renters. A small portion of the site (.22 acres) will be rezoned from Commercial Office to Residential Very High Density.

Page 8 ends

Item 9 Surrounding Land Use and Setting:

The overall 4.57-acre site is vacant does not have any structures but contains an existing 18 space parking lot, including a driveway leading to 9 parking spaces, on the adjacent property at the front of the site. The existing parking lot has served the medical office building located across Heywood Street. The site but was previously developed as a hospital campus. Vegetation on the site consists of remaining ornamental trees and weedy areas, and the terrain is generally level. Heywood Street and medical buildings exist to the north and northeast of the site, a senior apartment building exists to the west, Erringer Road to the east with a townhouse development beyond, and the Arroyo Simi borders the site to the south with Rancho Simi Park beyond. A multi-use recreation trail runs along the south boundary as well.

The revisions made to the project description are not significant per CEQA Rule 15073.5 and therefore recirculation will not be necessary.

In regards to the inconsistent disclosures regarding the population increase associated with the project, the MND includes different population projections: 1) one projection is the Equivalent Dwelling Unit factor, which is 418
S1-3
ZS20220001, PDS20220001, AHA20220001 PC Staff Report Supplemental (sy) based on the Residential Building Permit Finals monthly report which is 2.2 persons per apartment dwelling unit and equals a population increase by 183 people; and 2) the other projection is based on the General Plan Environmental Impact Report standard of 2.98 persons per dwelling unit which equals to a population increase of 247 people, or 0.2%. The first projection was used per the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines. The second projection was used for calculating population increase. The third number of 253 was calculated in error but it stills equates to an increase in population of 0.2% which is not considered substantial population growth. Therefore, the revision to the population number in the Population and Housing section of the MND would not be a substantial revision and recirculation would not be necessary.

b. SVMP Comment:  Substantial Evidence/Insufficient Analysis – Substantial evidence must support all conclusions reached and a MND must include sufficiently detailed, project specific analysis to satisfy CEQA’s informed decision-making mandate. The MND does not meet those standards as it fails to include the requisite expert analysis to support the conclusions offered. For example, the MND does not include Project specific air quality, biological resource, cultural resource, greenhouse gas, noise, or transportation (VMT) reports. In addition, while acknowledging that the Project site is within the 100-year floodplain, the MND defers any analysis of potential impacts associated with the same.

Staff Response:
• A CalEEMod report was generated for Air Quality and GHG. The CalEEMod report determined the project is below the limits of ROG and NOx thus not causing a significant impact, and no mitigation was required.
• A biological resource report was not prepared for the project because it is an infill project on a site that was previously graded and developed with a hospital building, thus not causing a significant impact, and no mitigation was required.
• A cultural resources study was not required because the project site was previously disturbed for the construction of the previous hospital building. It was determined that ground disturbance from previous construction would have disturbed cultural resources and mitigation was added in case cultural resources were discovered during project grading. Additionally, the project was distributed to identified Native American tribes who did not identify this area as concern for cultural resource finds, thus no mitigation was required.
• A noise study was not prepared for the project site because it is not located in a noise sensitive area requiring a noise study, per the zoning code, and is located in a residential neighborhood where the General Plan threshold for interior noise is 45 dBA and exterior is 63 dBA. The increased number of vehicle trips would not increase the existing noise 419
S1-4
ZS20220001, PDS20220001, AHA20220001 PC Staff Report Supplemental (sy) in the neighborhood; therefore, a noise study was not required, and thus no mitigation was required.
• A traffic study was prepared for the project and was part of the references as item 39. The City’s Traffic Engineer reviewed the report and determined the project be screened from VMT analysis. • The project site is located within a 100 year flood plain; however, as discussed in the Initial Study, a LOMR must be received from FEMA, removing the property from the flood plain prior to grading permits being issued. The project is conditioned for a LOMR to be obtained prior to grading permits being issued.
c. SVMP Comment: Inadequate Mitigation – The MND defers the establishment of enforceable and adequate mitigation. By way of example, for geology, the MND discloses the Potential for significant impacts due to expansive soils, liquefaction and seismic-related ground failure. Yet, the MND imposes no mitigation and instead improperly defers identification of remedial measures to the construction permitting process.

Staff Response: The Initial Study references the Geotechnical report, which describes requirements the project must incorporate into the grading practices and building’s foundation design to avoid impacts from the identified geologic conditions on the site. The Geotechnical report was included as part of the references, and it states that the foundation design is to be approved by the Building Official which will occur during the building permit plan check review. Therefore, the MND did not include mitigation measures since the project will be required to meet all building code requirements and approved by the Building Official, and thus no mitigation was required.

3. Comment letter from Ventura County Environmental Health received November 16, 2022 (Attachment 3).
a. Comment: The proposed residential development includes construction of a community recreation area with a swimming pool. The building/applicant shall submit plans for the public swimming pool to the Community Services Section of this Division and obtain plan approval prior to beginning of any construction of the swimming pool and auxiliary structures.

Staff Response: Thank you for your comment.
b. Comment: A Permit to Operate from this Division would also be required prior to use inauguration of the swimming pool.

Contact the Division’s Community Service Section for information on public swimming pool plan review and permitting requirements. Information on public swimming pool construction and operational requirements may be found here: https://vcrma.org/en/recreational-health-public-pools-and-spas Staff Response: Thank you for your comment.
420
S1-5
ZS20220001, PDS20220001, AHA20220001 PC Staff Report Supplemental (sy)

4. Comment letter from Ventura County Air Pollution Control District received November 16, 2022 (Attachment 4).
a. Comment: APCD cannot confirm the input parameters of the CalEEMod report as it was not attached to the MND. The operational emissions estimated was 2.74 lbs/day reactive organic compounds (ROC) and 0.31 lbs/day nitrous oxides (NOx) (MND, Page 14). Since the majority of project emissions come from mobile sources, the model should have project-specific traffic information, such as ADT or VMT for weekdays and weekends. This information should be taken from the project’s Traffic Study, also not attached to the MND. Please confirm this is incorporated into the air emissions model for an accurate estimation of the project’s emissions and determining its air quality impact or make the appropriate changes to the model with a more detailed description of parameters used in the discussion.

Staff Response: The CalEEMod report was rerun to include the Average Daily Trips (ADT) from the traffic study prepared for the project. The ROC increased from 2.74 pounds to 2.77 pounds per day, an increase of 0.03 pounds. There was no change to the NOx which remained at 0.31 pounds per day. While the ROC increased it does not exceed the threshold of 25 pounds. Therefore, the revision to the Initial Study Air Quality Section a through c would not be a substantial revision and recirculation would not be necessary.
b. Comment: Several construction mitigation measures were proposed, including the requirement to use Tier 3 off-road construction equipment. The Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (AQAG), which was used in the air quality analysis, recommends quantifying construction emissions and if they’re above the operational threshold (no threshold for construction and not counted towards significance impact determination), to enact emission reduction measures. We therefore recommend quantifying and disclosing the unmitigated construction emissions estimated and running the model again with a Tier 3 mitigation option under Construction to quantify the reduction. If the emissions are still above the optional threshold for NOx, requiring Tier 4 off-road construction equipment may be necessary; the model can also quantify this mitigation. Note – Rule 74.2, Architectural Coatings, has recently been amended and the model ROC max rating needs to be changed to 50 g/L ROC. If ROC for construction is still above the threshold, including a measure to use 25 g/L ROC-paints or lower may be necessary.

Staff Response: The CalEEMod Report was rerun to include Average Daily Trips (ADT) and Tier 3 off-road construction equipment. The ROC increased from 37.9 pounds to 38.4 pounds, an increase of 0.50 pounds per day. The mitigation measures included as part of the MND address the ROC over the 25 pounds per day threshold, although the ROC is still over the 25 pound threshold, the increase in the revised report is minimal, therefore the revision to the Initial Study Air Quality section (d) would not be a substantial revision and recirculation would not be necessary.
421
S1-6
ZS20220001, PDS20220001, AHA20220001 PC Staff Report Supplemental (sy) c. Comment: Finally, we advise all construction measures proposed to become enforceable conditions on a discretionary permit, such as a residential or construction/grading permit.

Staff Response: The mitigation measures included in the MND are incorporated into the project conditions and will be enforced as part of the project grading and construction.

5. Comment letter from Ventura County Watershed Protection received November 17, 2022 (Attachment 5).
a. Comment: We have no additional comments to add to the project at this time.

However, please see the following notes:

1. The project site is in the City of Simi Valley and in a SFHA Zone AO depth 2 of Dry Canyon. A LOMR (the City of Simi as floodplain administrator) will be prepared to remove the property from the 100-year floodplain, according to the Initial Study.

2. The project will provide two onsite detention basins (grading plan) to mitigate the post-development 100-year storm to less than 10-year predevelopment peak (drainage report), which meets the county’s mitigation requirements.

3. The project will utilize the two existing storm drains to connect to the Arroyo Simi channel.

4. Comments requesting the application of an encroachment permit has been provided on 1/31/2022. No additional CEQA review comments.

Staff Response: Thank you for your comment.

Attachments:

Attachment 1: Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians Email dated November 1, 2022 Attachment 2: Simi Valley Medical Partnership (SVMP) Letter received November 15, 2022 Attachment 3: Ventura County Environmental Health Letter received November 16, 2022 Attachment 4: Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Letter received November 16, 2022 Attachment 5: Ventura County Watershed Protection Email received November 17, 2022 422
1 Elizabeth Richardson
From: Sarah Brunzell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2022 2:59 PM
To: Stephanie Yates
Cc: Elizabeth Richardson; Sean Gibson; THCP
Subject: Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Notice of Release for Public Review (ZS-2022-0002, PD-S-2022-0001, AHA-2022-0001) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good afternoon Stephanie,
On behalf of the Cultural Resource Management (CRM) Division of the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI), thank you for the opportunity to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Z-S-2022- 0002, PD-S-2022-0001, AHA-2022-0001. The tribe agrees with the Mitigated Measures and has no further comments.

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND

MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify the sender by reply e-mail so that the email address record can be corrected. Thank You.

Sarah Brunzell
Manager
Cultural Resources Management Division
Tribal Historic and Cultural Preservation Department

Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
1019 Second Street, Suite 1
San Fernando, California 91340
Office: (818) 837-0794
Cell: 310-913-4838
Website: http://www.tataviam-nsn.us
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 423 ATTACHMENT 1
2 "AcknowledgeRent.org" is a tangible way for the residents of northern Los Angeles County to make meaningful land acknowledgements through contributions to the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. Through AcknowledgeRent, people who reside or work on our homelands can help undo the harm caused by the theft of a land base that causes ongoing ramifications for this community. Visit the link to learn more!
From: Stephanie Yates <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2022 5:06 PM
Cc: Elizabeth Richardson <[email protected]>; Sean Gibson <[email protected]> Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Notice of Release for Public Review (Z‐S‐2022‐0002, PD‐S‐2022‐0001, AHA‐ 2022‐0001)

[CAUTION] EXTERNAL Email. Exercise caution.

Good afternoon,

Attached please find a Notice of Release for Public Review and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Z‐S‐2022‐0002, PD‐S‐ 2022‐0001, AHA‐2022‐0001. This item has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing.

As stated in the Notice, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study will be available for review at www.simivalley.org/CEQA. The review period is from October 28, 2022, to November 16, 2022.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you.

Best Regards,
Stephanie Yates
Recording Secretary
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Direct: 805-583-6836

424

SIMI VALLEY MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP
16A7 ERRINGER ROAD, SUITE 1O3
SIMI VALLEY, CA. 93065
(aos) 522-319s
November 75,2022

VIA EMAIL
Elizabeth Richardson, Associate Planner
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, California 93063
[email protected]
Re: Project Nos. Z-S-2022-0OOZIPD-S-2022-0001I /AHA-2022-0001(The Churchill Apartments) - CEQA Comment Letter
Dear Ms. Richardson:

I am writing on behalf of Simi Valley Medical Partnership (SVMP). As an owner of properties in the vicinity of the above referenced Project, we have concerns about the Project's potential impacts on the environment. We are providing this letter in response to the City's request for public comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for Project Nos. Z-S-2022-00021PD-S-2022-A0OUAIIA-2022-0001, (MND). For the reasons set forth below, reliance on the MND for the Project is not proper under CEQA.

By way of background, and as you are aware from our prior communications, SVMP has used, maintained and improved the existing parking lot portion of the Project site for many years.

Those parking spaces benefit SVMP's medical office building located at 1687 Erringer Road.

The Project proposes to eliminate SVMP's parking spaces. The applicant's team has also misled us about the applicant's efforts to secure the Project approvals and a mutually acceptable solution to the parking dispute the applicant has created.

As this letter demonstrates, a fair argument exists that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment requiring preparation of an EIR. We offer the following comments regarding the inadequacies of the MND.
. Project Description - CEQA requires that a MND include an accurate, stable and finite project description. The MND provides an inaccurate and incomplete 425 ATTACHMENT 2
Elizabeth Richardson, Associate Planner
November 15,2022

Page 2 ends

project description. By way of example, the MND (i) never mentions the parking that exists on the Project site and instead misleadingly asserts the Project site is entirely vacant; and (ii) includes inconsistent disclosures regarding the population increases associated with the Project.
o Substantial Evidence/Insufficient Analysis - Substantial evidence must support all conclusions reached and a MND must include sufficiently detailed, project specific analysis to satisff CEQA's informed decision-making mandate. The MND does not meet those standards as it fails to include the requisite expert analysis to support the conclusions offered. For example, the MND does not include Project specific air quality, biological resource, cultural resource, greenhouse gas, noise, or transportation (VMT) reports. In addition, while acknowledging that the Project site is within the 100-year floodplain, the MND defers any analysis of potential impacts associated with the same. o Inadequate Mitigation -The MND defers the establishment of enforceable and adequate mitigation. By way of example, for geology, the MND discloses the potential for significant impacts due to expansive soils, liquefaction and seismicrelated ground failure. Yet, the MND imposes no mitigation and instead improperly defers identification of remedial measures to the construction permitting process.

Thank you for your consideration of the above preliminary comments and for confirming receipt of this letter. We trust the City will not move forward with the Project approvals at this time given the circumstances and inadequacies of the MND. If the Project proceeds, please note that we reserve the right to submit further comments regarding the failings of the MND and the Project.

Sincerely, i
426
427 ATTACHMENT 3

VENTURA COUNTY

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
Memorandum
TO: Elizabeth Richardson, Associate Planner DATE: November 16, 2022 FROM: Nicole Collazo, Air Quality Specialist, VCAPCD Planning Division SUBJECT: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Churchill Apartments Project (RMA 22-034) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff has reviewed the subject mitigated negative declaration (MND) of the project referenced above. The project proposes to construct 83 multi-family units. The project location is 1850 Heywood Street. The Lead Agency for the project is the City of Simi Valley. APCD submits the following comments for the project MND.

General Comments
Item 1- APCD cannot confirm the input parameters of the CalEEMod report as it was not attached to the MND. The operational emissions estimated was 2.74 lbs./day reactive organic compounds (ROC) and

0.31 lbs./day nitrous oxides (NOx) (MND, Page 14). Since the majority of project emissions come from mobile sources, the model should have project-specific traffic information, such as ADT or VMT for weekdays and weekends. This information should be taken from the project’s Traffic Study, also not attached to the MND. Please confirm this is incorporated into the air emissions model for an accurate estimation of the project’s emissions and determining its air quality impact or make the appropriate changes to the model with a more detailed description of parameters used in the discussion.

Item 2- Several construction mitigation measures were proposed, including the requirement to use Tier 3 off-road construction equipment. The Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (AQAG), which was used in the air quality analysis, recommends quantifying construction emissions and if they’re above the operational threshold (no threshold for construction and not counted towards significance impact determination), to enact emission reduction measures. We therefore recommend quantifying and disclosing the unmitigated construction emissions estimated and running the model again with a Tier 3 mitigation option under Construction to quantify the reduction. If the emissions are still above the operational threshold for NOx, requiring Tier 4 off-road construction equipment may be necessary; the model can also quantify this mitigation. Note- Rule 74.2, Architectural Coatings, has recently been amended and the model ROC max rating needs to be changed to 50 g/L ROC. If ROC for construction is still above the threshold, including a measure to use 25 g/L ROC-paints or lower may be necessary.

Item 3- Finally, we advise all construction measures proposed to become enforceable conditions on a discretionary permit, such as a residential or construction/grading permit.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project. If you have any questions, you may contact me at [email protected].

ATTACHMENT 4 428
1 Elizabeth Richardson
From: Husted, Dawn <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 11:15 AM
To: Ciuffetelli, Anthony
Cc: Elizabeth Richardson; CEQA
Subject: RMA22-034 Churchill Apts
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Anthony,

We have no additional comments to add to the project at this time. However, please see the following notes:

1. The project site is in the City of Simi Valley and in a SFHA Zone AO depth 2 of Dry Canyon. A LOMR (the city of Simi as floodplain administrator) will be prepared to remove the property from the 100-year floodplain, according to the Initial Study.

2. The project will provide two onsite detention basins (grading plan) to mitigate the post-development 100-year storm to less than 10-year pre-development peak (drainage report), which meets the county’s mitigation requirements.

3. The project will utilize the two existing storm drains to connect to the Arroyo Simi channel.

4. Comments requesting the application of an encroachment permit has been provided on 1/31/2022. No additional CEQA review comments.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Dawn Husted
Management Assistant II
Watershed Protection – Planning & Permits
800 S. Victoria Ave. / #1610
Ventura, CA 93009
P: 805.662-6882
VCPWA Online | Facebook | Twitter

429 ATTACHMENT 5

Simi Valley City CouncilJanuary 23, 2023

Simi Valley City Council
January 23, 2023