According to VCAPCD, the County has been designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a nonattainment area for ozone. The County is also in nonattainment for PM10.
Response 3.3
The commenter states that on Page 20 of the IS-MND, the IS-MND states that a generator for stationary emission sources associated with the proposed project was included. The commenter then 184
City of Simi Valley
1845 Oak Road Residential Development Project Responses to Comments on the IS-MND states that, if the generator will be powered by a diesel engine over 50 HP, it will require an APCD Permit to Operate.
In the revised Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study by MD Acoustics (September 2024), an emergency diesel generator has been added to the model as a worst-case scenario. To reflect this change, the City will condition the project, requiring the applicant to obtain an APCD Permit to Operate if it uses a generator powered by a diesel engine over 50 HP. Because obtaining this permit is a regulatory requirement, it can be enforced through a condition of approval and does not need to be added as a mitigation measure to the IS-MND.
Response 3.4
The commenter states that Appendix B of the IS-MND (the Traffic Impact Study) indicates that the proposed project will have 65 units, but the IS-MND project description and air emissions modelling indicate a unit amount of 70.
The 65-unit count is based on a previous site plan. The current site plan has 70 units. This 70-unit count has been accounted for in a memo provided by TJW Engineering included as an attachment to the Final IS-MND.
Response 3.5
The commenter states that on page 20-21 in the construction emissions section, the IS-MND does not include the construction emissions quantified. The commenter states that APCD does not have adopted construction thresholds but does recommend construction emissions be quantified and compared against the operational threshold for the project location, in this case 25 lbs./day for ROC or NOx (AQAG, Section 5.2). If emissions are over the recommended threshold, emission reduction measures, such as requiring Tier 3 and/or Tier diesel-rated off-road construction equipment and requiring low to zero-VOC paints for construction activities, should be included as standard conditions of approval. MD Acoustics has now updated the model (see the updated Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study attachment to the Final IS-MND) to limit the VOC content of interior and exterior paint to 18 grams per liter (g/L) and to reflect the use of Tier 3 equipment during grading.
These requirements to limit the VOC content of interior and exterior paint to 18 g/L and to use Tier 3 equipment (or better) will be made a condition of approval of the proposed project by the City. MD Acoustic has also updated the model to extend the grading phase from the default of 6 to 10 days to account for a more reasonable yet still conservative schedule of soil import (worst case scenario of 137.5 heavy-heavy duty truck trips for hauling).
Th commenter states that the revisions to the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study will allow the commenter to review estimated quantified constructions of the proposed project, but since, as stated in the Construction Emissions section on page 20 of the Draft IS-MND, VCAPCD has not established quantitative thresholds for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and the 25 pounds per day threshold for ROG and NOx do not apply to construction emissions, quantified construction emissions cannot be compared to any applicable threshold and it is not necessary to add this information to the IS-MND other than incorporating by reference through this response.
Response 3.6
The commenter states that Appendix A of the IS-MND, (the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study) states that the proposed project will generate a total of 472 trips per day, but Table 6 185
City of Simi Valley
1845 Oak Road Residential Development Project Responses to Comments on the IS-MND of the Traffic Impact Study has a total ADT of 438. The commenter also notes the CalEEMod report uses an ADT of 472.
See response to Item 3.4. 472 ADT is the current and correct number per the revision memo from TJW Engineering. Because 472 ADT was used in the air quality modeling used in the IS-MND analysis, no revisions to the IS-MND are required.
Response 3.7
The commenter states that impact discussion IIIc of the IS-MND (which they refer to as the “Toxics section”) should include the potential of asbestos exposure to nearby sensitive receptors from the proposed demolition activities. The commenter requests to include this and how the project will comply with APCD’s Rule 62.7, Asbestos- Demolition and Renovation, which primarily consist of notification requirements to the air district.
A discussion of asbestos and compliance with Rule 62.7 has been added as Section 6.4 of the revised Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study by MD Acoustics (September 2024), which is included as an attachment to the Final IS-MND. Page 22 of the Draft IS-MND is revised to incorporate this discussion of asbestos and compliance with Rule 62.7 as follows:
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by state, federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 1986. All types of asbestos are hazardous and may cause lung disease and cancer.
VCAPCD Rule 62.7 requires the removal all asbestos containing material (ACM) from a facility being demolished before any activity begins that would break up, dislodge or similarly disturb the ACM or permanently preclude access to the ACM for subsequent removal. The project will comply with all requirements in Rule 62.7 should ACM be present during demolition of the existing onsite structures.
These findings are consistent with the conclusion of impact discussion IIIc of the IS-MND, which found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact from construction and operational air emissions. No further changes to the IS-MND are required. 186
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” STATE OF CALIFORNIA-------CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7
100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE (213) 897- 0673
FAX (213) 897-1337
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life
August 18, 2024
Elizabeth Richardson, Senior Planner
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
RE: MND-Oak Road – Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND)
SCH #2024071172
GTS #07-VEN-2024-00608
VEN-118/R 29.65
Dear Elizabeth Richardson,
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. The Project proposes to demolish six existing, non-operational, vacant preschool buildings and construct a three story, 70-unit condominium townhouse complex on a 3.61-acre property located east of the Yosemite Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue intersection in the City of Simi Valley (City). The proposed project includes a General Plan Land Use change from General Commercial and Medium Density Residential to High Density, and would rezone the project site from Commercial Planned Development and Residential Medium Density to Residential High Density.
The proposed project would include 70 total units, a maximum building height of 40 feet and three stories. The required parking for the project is 130 parking spaces based on Density Bonus Law parking requirements. The proposed project would provide 168 parking spaces including 130 garage spaces, 18 driveway spaces, 6 head-in spaces, and 14 parallel spaces. The project would be developed on existing parcels and would not alter or affect existing street and intersection networks.
After reviewing the MND, Caltrans has the following comments:
As stated in the MND, the City of Simi Valley proposes a Class II bike lane on Yosemite Ave., from Cochran St. to Katherine St., in their Bicycle Master Plan. Caltrans strongly encourages the Applicant to collaborate with relevant City Staff to implement bicycle and 187
Elizabeth Richardson
August 18, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” pedestrian elements to increase safety and promote active transportation where possible.
Recommendations include adding communal bicycle parking and/or lockers to the project site per the City’s municipal code standards, along with short-term bicycle parking racks for guests which further promote active transportation and healthy living for the community.
When available, Caltrans would like to see a more detailed site plan map or renditions, particularly regarding dedicated pedestrian facilities along Oak Rd. which could safely accommodate walking/mobility device travel to public transit stops and amenities in the community. The 31’ right-of-way along Oak Rd. within the development site is wide enough to provide a pedestrian walkway or sidewalk while maintaining two 10-11' vehicle lanes. In addition to sidewalks, appropriate pedestrian-level lighting should be installed to ensure pedestrians and other road users will be visible at all times.
Lastly, if surface parking must be built, it is recommended that it not face the street directly. By shifting the parking to the rear or interior of the project site, a more inviting streetscape with more active frontage against the sidewalk can encourage both recreational and transportation walking. These urban design principles can affect mode choice and help the State of California achieve its goals to improve health and reduce Green House Gases (GHG).
Any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials that requires the use of oversized transport vehicles on State Highways will require a Caltrans transportation permit. Caltrans recommends limiting construction traffic to off-peak periods to minimize the potential impact on State facilities. If construction traffic is expected to cause issues on any State facilities, please submit a construction traffic control plan detailing these issues for Caltrans’ review. We look forward to the coordination of our efforts to ensure potential impacts to the highway facilities and traveling public are discussed and addressed before work begins.
If you have any questions, please contact project coordinator Frances Duong, at [email protected] and refer to GTS #07-VEN-2024-00608.
Sincerely,
Anthony Higgins
Acting LDR/CEQA Branch Chief
Cc: State Clearinghouse
188
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
August 7, 2024
Elizabeth Richardson
Senior Planner
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
[email protected]
RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE MND – OAK ROAD, DATED JULY 30, 2024 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2024071172)
Dear Elizabeth Richardson,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the MND – Oak Road project (project). The Applicant, City Ventures, proposes to demolish six existing, non-operational, vacant preschool buildings and construct a three story, 70-unit condominium townhouse complex on a
3.61-acre property located east of the Yosemite Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue intersection in the City of Simi Valley. The proposed project includes a General Plan Land Use change from General Commercial and Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential and would rezone the project site from Commercial Planned Development and Residential Medium Density to Residential High Density.
DTSC recommends the City of Simi Valley adhere to the following:
1. The City of Simi Valley enter into DTSC’s Standard Voluntary Agreement (SVA) program or seek oversight with soil remediation and testing as the 189
Elizabeth Richardson
August 7, 2024
zoning is changing from Commercial to Residential. Furthermore, there is no history of soil testing mentioned or referenced in the document. If entering into an SVA with DTSC, the FLUXX portal link is provided and the page also has a link to the Fluxx User Guide that can help you navigate the system. You will need to create a new profile and once in the system, click “Start a Request for Lead Agency Oversight Application.” DTSC recommends that once the SVA is signed, a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Report (PEA Report) be submitted for DTSC review. The PEA Report shall summarize all existing data and provide an evaluation of the possible risk to current and future users of the site. If you have any questions about the application portal, please contact the DTSC Brownfield Coordinator Gregory Shaffer or contact the Application Portal Inbox.
2. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Guidance Manual. Additionally, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material are suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of the prior land use. Additional information can be found by visiting DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage.
3. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition, and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In 190
Elizabeth Richardson
August 7, 2024
addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC's PEA Guidance Manual.
DTSC appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the MND – Oak Road project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me or a member of our CEQA Unit Team.
Sincerely,
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
CEQA Unit-Permitting/HWMP
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
191
Elizabeth Richardson
August 7, 2024
cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
CEQA State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
CEQA Unit-Permitting/HWMP
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
CEQA Unit-Permitting/HWMP
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
192
VENTURA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
Memorandum
TO: Elizabeth Richardson, Senior Planner DATE: August 19, 2024 FROM: Nicole Collazo, Air Quality Specialist, VCAPCD Planning Division SUBJECT: Request for Review for Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Oaks Road Residential Project (RMA 24-021)
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff has reviewed the subject Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND) for the project referenced above, which analyzed the environmental impacts of a project to construct a new 70-unit multi-family residential building.
The project location is 1845 Oak Road. The Lead Agency is the City of Simi Valley.
APCD has the following comments regarding the project’s DMND.
Item 1- AQMP Consistency Analysis, Page 19. The methodology for conducting the AQMP Consistency analysis does not conform with the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, or AQAG, which contains instructions for how to conduct the project population comparison with the existing and forecasted population growth. Please refer to the AQAG’s Section 4 for more information and use the 2022 AQMP /2020 Connect SoCal population data.
For example, the project’s expected population growth should be compared with the City of Simi Valley’s current population, not Ventura County population as a whole, and the next 5-yr interval from SCAG’s Connect SoCal population forecast for 2025 (interpolated from data).
Item 2- Nonattainment status, Page 19. Please also add PM10 as a state nonattainment status for Ventura County.
Item 3- Generator, Page 20. The DMND states that a generator for stationary emission sources of project was included. If the generator will be powered by a diesel engine over 50 HP, it will require an APCD Permit to Operate.
Item 4- Appendix B, traffic. The Traffic Impact Study indicates the project will have 65 units.
However, the DMND project description and air emissions modelling indicate a unit amount of
70. Please correct the incorrect value and adjust air emissions modelling, if applicable.
Item 5- Construction emissions, Page 20-21. The construction emissions section in the DMND does not include the construction emissions quantified. As a reminder, APCD does not have adopted construction thresholds. However, we do recommend construction emissions be quantified and compared against the operational threshold for the project location, in this case 25 lbs./day for ROC or NOx (AQAG, Section 5.2). If emissions are over the recommended threshold, 193
emission reduction measures, such as requiring Tier 3 and/or Tier diesel-rated off-road construction equipment and requiring low to zero-VOC paints for construction activities, should be included as standard conditions of approval. It is not clear what the ROC/VOC content of paint was used in the CalEEMod model but going above what was modelled and possibly quantifying the reduction in another model run may help determine the appropriate VOC content to reduce ROC emissions below 25 lbs./day.
Item 6- Appendix A, AQGGEIS. The Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study states that the project will generate a total of 472 trips per day. However, Table 6 of the Traffic Impact Study has a total ADT of 438. Please correct the incorrect value. Note- the CalEEMod report uses an ADT of 472.
Item 7- Toxics, Page 22. The DMND’s toxics section should include the potential of asbestos exposure to nearby sensitive receptors from the proposed demolition activities. Please include this and how the project will comply with APCD’s Rule 62.7, Asbestos- Demolition and Renovation, which primarily consist of notification requirements to the air district.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project’s DMND. If you have any questions, you may contact me at [email protected].
194
195
AZ Office CA Office
4960 S. Gilbert Road, Ste 1-461 1197 Los Angeles Avenue, Ste C-256 Chandler, AZ 85249 Simi Valley, CA 93065
p. (602) 774-1950 p. (805) 426-4477
www.mdacoustics.com
MD Acoustics, LLC 1
JN: 01632204_RTC#1_9.4.2024
September 4, 2024
Eric Miller
City Ventures
3121 Michaelson Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92555
Subject: 1845 Oak Road Residential Development – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study – Simi Valley, CA
Response to Comments #1
Dear Mr. Miller:
MD Acoustics, LLC (MD) has received comments from VCAPCD dated August 19, 2024. MD has provided these responses to the comments as outlined below:
Item 1 AQMP Consistency Analysis, Page 19. The methodology for conducting the AQMP Consistency analysis does not conform with the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, or AQAG, which contains instructions for how to conduct the project population comparison with the existing and forecasted population growth. Please refer to the AQAG’s Section 4 for more information and use the 2022 AQMP /2020 Connect SoCal population data. For example, the project’s expected population growth should be compared with the City of Simi Valley’s current population, not Ventura County population as a whole, and the next 5-yr interval from SCAG’s Connect SoCal population forecast for 2025 (interpolated from data).
MD Response: The AQMP consistency discussion has been revised with a comparison to population growth per VCAPCD guidelines.
Item 2 Nonattainment status, Page 19. Please also add PM10 as a state nonattainment status for Ventura County.
MD Response: Revised to note PM10 as a state nonattainment status.
Item 3 Generator, Page 20. The DMND states that a generator for stationary emission sources of project was included. If the generator will be powered by a diesel engine over 50 HP, it will require an APCD Permit to Operate.
MD Response: An emergency diesel generator has been added to the model as a worst case scenario.
Item 4 Appendix B, traffic. The Traffic Impact Study indicates the project will have 65 units.
However, the DMND project description and air emissions modelling indicate a unit 196
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Response to Comments #1
MD Acoustics, LLC 2
JN: 01632204_RTC#1_9.4.2024
amount of 70. Please correct the incorrect value and adjust air emissions modelling, if applicable.
MD Response: This is based on a previous site plan. The current site plan has 70 units and this has been accounted for in a memo provided by TJW Engineering.
Item 5 Construction emissions, Page 20-21. The construction emissions section in the DMND does not include the construction emissions quantified. As a reminder, APCD does not have adopted construction thresholds. However, we do recommend construction emissions be quantified and compared against the operational threshold for the project location, in this case 25 lbs./day for ROC or NOx (AQAG, Section 5.2). If emissions are over the recommended threshold, emission reduction measures, such as requiring Tier 3 and/or Tier diesel-rated off-road construction equipment and requiring low to zero-VOC paints for construction activities, should be included as standard conditions of approval.
It is not clear what the ROC/VOC content of paint was used in the CalEEMod model but going above what was modelled and possibly quantifying the reduction in another model run may help determine the appropriate VOC content to reduce ROC emissions below 25 lbs./day.
MD Response: The model has been updated to limit the VOC content of interior and exterior paint to 18 grams per liter (g/L) and use Tier 3 equipment during grading. The grading phase was also extended from the default of 6 days to 10 days to account for a more reasonable yet still conservative schedule of soil import (worst case scenario of 137.5 heavy-heavy duty truck trips for hauling).
Item 6 Appendix A, AQGGEIS. The Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study states that the project will generate a total of 472 trips per day. However, Table 6 of the Traffic Impact Study has a total ADT of 438. Please correct the incorrect value. Note- the CalEEMod report uses an ADT of 472.
MD Response: See response to Item 4. 472 trips per day is the current and correct number per the revision memo from TJW Engineering.
Item 7 Toxics, Page 22. The DMND’s toxics section should include the potential of asbestos exposure to nearby sensitive receptors from the proposed demolition activities. Please include this and how the project will comply with APCD’s Rule 62.7, Asbestos- Demolition and Renovation, which primarily consist of notification requirements to the air district.
MD Response: A discussion of asbestos and compliance with Rule 62.7 has been added as section 6.4.
Please do not hesitate to call our office at 805-426-4477 with any questions or comments. 197
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Response to Comments #1
MD Acoustics, LLC 3
JN: 01632204_RTC#1_9.4.2024
Sincerely,
MD Acoustics, LLC
Tyler Klassen, EIT
Air Quality Specialist
198
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact
Study
City of Simi Valley, CA
Prepared for:
Eric Miller
City Ventures
3121 Michaelson Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92555
Prepared by:
MD Acoustics, LLC
Tyler Klassen, EIT
1197 Los Angeles Ave, Ste C-256
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Date: 9/4/2024
199
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS
MD Acoustics, LLC ii
JN: 01632204_Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives 1
1.2 Project Summary 1
1.2.1 Site Location 1
1.2.2 Project Description 1
1.2.3 Sensitive Receptors 1
1.3 Executive Summary of Findings and Mitigation Measures 2
2.0 Regulatory Framework and Background.................................................................................6
2.1 Air Quality Regulatory Setting 6
2.1.1 National and State 6
2.1.2 Local 8
2.1.3 City of Simi Valley 10
2.2 Greenhouse Gas Regulatory Setting 10
2.2.1 International 10
2.2.2 National 11
2.2.3 California 12
2.2.4 Local 19
3.0 Setting.................................................................................................................................20
3.1 Existing Physical Setting 20
3.1.1 Local Climate and Meteorology 20
3.1.2 Local Air Quality 21
3.1.3 Attainment Status 22
3.2 Greenhouse Gases 23
4.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions...............................................................................25
4.1 Construction 25
4.2 Operations 25
5.0 Thresholds of Significance....................................................................................................27
5.1 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance 27
5.1.1 CEQA Guidelines for Air Quality 27
5.1.2 Regional Significance Thresholds 27
5.2 Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance 28
5.2.1 CEQA Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas 28
5.3 Toxic Air Contaminants 29
6.0 Air Quality Emissions Impact................................................................................................31
6.1 Construction Air Quality Emissions Impact 31
6.1.1 Temporary Construction Emissions 31
6.1.3 Odors 32
200
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS
MD Acoustics, LLC iii
JN: 01632204_Report
6.2 Operational Air Quality Emissions Impact 32
6.2.1 Operational Emissions 32
6.3 CO Hot Spot Emissions 33
6.4 Asbestos 34
6.5 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts 34
6.6 Air Quality Compliance 35
7.0 Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis..........................................................................................36
7.1 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 36
7.2 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 36
7.3 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency 37
8.0 Energy Analysis....................................................................................................................39
8.1 Construction Energy Demand 39
8.1.1 Construction Equipment Electricity Usage Estimates 39
8.1.2 Construction Equipment Fuel Estimates 40
8.1.3 Construction Worker Fuel Estimates 41
8.1.4 Construction Vendor/Hauling Fuel Estimates 41
8.1.5 Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures 42
8.2 Operational Energy Demand 43
8.2.1 Transportation Fuel Consumption 43
8.2.2 Facility Energy Demands (Electricity and Natural Gas) 44
8.3 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan Consistency 44
9.0 References...........................................................................................................................46 201
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS
MD Acoustics, LLC iv
JN: 01632204_Report
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A:
CalEEMod Emission Output
Appendix B:
EMFAC 2017 Output
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A ...........................................................................................................................................4 Location Map 4
Exhibit B ...........................................................................................................................................5 Site Plan 5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Land Use Summary........................................................................................................................ 1 Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................................................................................................... 7 Table 3: Meteorological Summary............................................................................................................ 20 Table 4: Local Area Air Quality Levels....................................................................................................... 21 Table 5: Description of Greenhouse Gases............................................................................................... 24 Table 6: Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ................................. 31 Table 7: Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions................................... 32 Table 8: Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................... 36 Table 9: Opening Year Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................ 37 Table 10: Project Consistency with City of Simi Valley Climate Action Plan ............................................ 38 Table 11: Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage ........................................................... 39 Table 12: Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates............................................................ 40 Table 13: Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates ................................................................. 41 Table 14: Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD Trucks)1......................................... 42 Table 15: Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks)1.......................................... 42 Table 16: Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption .................................................................... 43 Table 17: Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary1..................................... 44 202
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS
MD Acoustics, LLC v
JN: 01632204_Report
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CARB California Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 Methane
CNG Compressed natural gas
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
DPM Diesel particulate matter
GHG Greenhouse gas
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
MTCO2e Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MMTCO2e Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
N2O Nitrous oxide
O3 Ozone
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PM Particle matter
PM10 Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5 Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter PMI Point of maximum impact
PPM Parts per million
PPB Parts per billion
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOx Sulfur Oxides
SRA Source/Receptor Area
TAC Toxic air contaminants
VCAPCD Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
VOC Volatile organic compounds
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
203
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Introduction
1 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives
This air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis was prepared to evaluate whether the estimated criteria pollutants and GHG emissions generated from the project would cause a significant impact to the air resources in the project area. This assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.).
The assessment is consistent with the methodology and emission factors endorsed by Ventura County Air Pollution control district (VCAPCD), California Air Resource Board (CARB), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).
1.2 Project Summary
1.2.1 Site Location
The project site is located at 1845 Oak Road, east of the Yosemite Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue intersection in the City of Simi Valley, California, as shown in Exhibit A. The project site lot is designated as general commercial and medium-density residential. Land uses surrounding the site include commercial and high-density residential to the west, medium-density and mobile home to the south, commercial and very high-density residential to the east, and commercial and high-density residential to the north.
1.2.2 Project Description
The project proposes to develop 70 homes on 3.61 acres. There will be 168 parking spaces (2 garage spaces per home plus an addition 38 spaces). The site plan used for this project, provided by City Ventures, is shown in Exhibit B.
Construction activities within the Project area will consist of on-site demolition, grading, building, paving, and architectural coating. Table 1 summarizes the land use description for the Project Site.
Table 1: Land Use Summary
Land Use Unit Amount Size Metric
Condo/Townhouse 70 Units
Garage 130 Spaces
Parking Lot 38 Spaces
1.2.3 Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are considered land uses or other types of population groups that are more sensitive to air pollution than others due to their exposure. As identified by the California Air Resources 204
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Introduction
2 Board (CARB), sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely and chronically ill, and those with cardio-respiratory diseases. For CEQA purposes, a sensitive receptor would be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24-hours or longer, such as residencies, hospitals, and schools (etc).
The closest existing sensitive receptors (to the site area) are the single-family residential land uses located 25 feet to the southeast.
1.3 Executive Summary of Findings and Mitigation Measures The following is a summary of the analysis results:
Construction-Source Emissions
Project construction-source emissions would not exceed the VCAPCD’s nor the City of Simi Valley’s significance thresholds for criteria pollutants.
Project construction-source emissions would not conflict with any state or regional plan. As discussed herein, the project will comply with all applicable VCAPCD construction-source emission reduction rules and guidelines. Project construction source emissions would not cause or substantively contribute to violation of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Established requirements addressing construction equipment operations, and construction material use, storage, and disposal requirements act to minimize odor impacts that may result from construction activities. Moreover, construction-source odor emissions would be temporary, shortterm, and intermittent in nature and would not result in persistent impacts that would affect substantial numbers of people. Potential construction-source odor impacts are therefore considered less-than-significant.
Operational-Source Emissions
Operational-sourced emissions would not exceed the VCAPCD’s nor the City of Simi Valley’s significance thresholds; therefore, impacts during project operation would be less than significant.
Project-related traffic will not cause or result in CO concentrations exceeding applicable state and/or federal standards (CO “hotspots). Project operational-source emissions would therefore not adversely affect sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the project.
The project does not propose any such uses or activities that would result in potentially significant operational-source odor impacts. Potential operational-source odor impacts are therefore considered less-than significant. The project would not conflict with the goals of SB-32, the CARB Scoping Plan, or the City of Simi Valley Climate Action Plan; therefore, the project would not generate significant GHG emissions and would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impacts are considered to be less than significant.
205
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Introduction
3 Mitigation Measures
A. Construction Measures
No construction mitigation required. However, the following standard conditions have been included in order to meet the operational emission thresholds set by the VCAPCD:
Standard Condition 1: Equipment used during grading shall have engine ratings of Tier 3 or higher.
Standard Condition 2: The VOC content of interior and exterior paint shall be limited to 18 grams per liter (g/L)
B. Operational Measures to Reduce Emissions
No operational mitigation required.
206
Exhibit A
Location Map
4 Introduction
SITE
Yosemite Avenue
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA
Los Angeles Ave
Cherry Ave
Oak Rd
Shunk Rd
207
Exhibit B
Site Plan
5 Introduction
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA
208
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 6 2.0 Regulatory Framework and Background
2.1 Air Quality Regulatory Setting
Air pollutants are regulated at the national, state, and air basin level; each agency has a different level of regulatory responsibility. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates at the national level. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) regulates at the state level. The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) regulates at the air basin level.
2.1.1 National and State
The EPA is responsible for global, international, and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The EPA sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State Implementation Plans, provides research and guidance for air pollution programs, and sets National Air Quality Standards, also known as federal standards. There are six common air pollutants, called criteria pollutants, which were identified from the provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970. • Ozone
• Nitrogen Dioxide
• Lead
• Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
• Carbon Monoxide
• Particulate Matter
• Sulfur Dioxide
The federal standards were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals; thus, the standards continue to change as more medical research is available regarding the health effects of the criteria pollutants. Primary federal standards are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to project the public health.
A State Implementation Plan is a document prepared by each state describing existing air quality conditions and measures that will be followed to attain and maintain federal standards. The State Implementation Plan for the State of California is administered by the ARB, which has overall responsibility for statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention. California’s State Implementation Plan incorporates individual federal attainment plans for regional air districts—air district prepares their federal attainment plan, which sent to ARB to be approved and incorporated into the California State Implementation Plan. Federal attainment plans include the technical foundation for understanding air quality (e.g., emission inventories and air quality monitoring), control measures and strategies, and enforcement mechanisms. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs.htm for additional information on criteria pollutants and air quality standards.
The federal and state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 2 and can also be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
209
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 7 Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentrations3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7 Ozone (O3) 1-Hour 0.09 ppm Ultraviolet
Photometry
- - Same as Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm (147 μg/m Photometry 3)
Respirable
Particulate Matter
(PM10)8
24-Hour 50 μg/m3
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
150 μ/m3
Same as Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m3
- -
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)8
24-Hour - - - - 35 μg/m3
Same as Primary
Standard Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m Analysis 3
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1-Hour 20 ppm (23 μg/m3)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
35 ppm (40 μg/m3) - -
Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry (NDIR)
8-Hour 9.0 ppm (10 μg/m3) 9 ppm (10 μg/m3) - -
8-Hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 μg/m3
) - - - -
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
9 1-Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3)
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
100 ppb (188 μg/m3) - -
Gas Phase
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (357 μg/m Chemiluminescence 3) 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) Same as Primary
Standard
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
10 1-Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
75 ppb (196 μg/m3) - -
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3-Hour - - - -
0.5 ppm
(1300 mg/m3)
24-Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3)
0.14 ppm
(for certain areas)10 - -
Annual Arithmetic Mean - -
0.130ppm
(for certain areas)10 - -
Lead11,12
30 Day Average 1.5 μg/m3
Atomic Absorption
- -
Calendar Qrtr - -
1.5 μg/m3
(for certain areas)12 Same as Primary
Standard
High Volume
Sampler and Atomic
Rolling 3-Month Average - - 0.15 μg/m3 Absorption
Visibility Reducing
Particles13 8-Hour See footnote 13
Beta Attenuation and
Transmittance
through Filter Tape No
National
Standards
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 μg/m3Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl Chloride11 24-Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) Gas Chromatography Notes:
1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies.
3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.
5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.
6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the U.S. EPA. 210
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 8 8. On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3to 12.0 μg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.
9. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.
10. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1- hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.
Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
11. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined.
These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
12. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
13. In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
Several pollutants listed in Table 2 are not addressed in this analysis. Analysis of lead is not included in this report because the project is not anticipated to emit lead. Visibility-reducing particles are not explicitly addressed in this analysis because particulate matter is addressed. The project is not expected to generate or be exposed to vinyl chloride because proposed project uses do not utilize the chemical processes that create this pollutant and there are no such uses in the project vicinity. The proposed project is not expected to cause exposure to hydrogen sulfide because it would not generate hydrogen sulfide in any substantial quantity.
2.1.2 Local
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
The VCAPCD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the County. The VCAPCD works directly with SCAG, the County Transportation Commission, and local governments and cooperates actively with federal and state government agencies. The VCAPCD develops rules and regulations to reduce emissions, protect public health and agriculture, and to achieve and maintain state and federal air quality standards. In addition, the VCAPCD establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary.
The following lists the VCAPCD rules that are applicable but not limited to all warehouse projects in the Air Basin.
Rule 55 – Fugitive Dust Control
211
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 9 Rule 55 governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction activities and requires the following:
1. Visible Dust Beyond the Property Line: No person shall cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust from any applicable source such that the dust remains visible beyond the midpoint (width) of a public street or road adjacent to the property line of the emission source or beyond 50 feet from the property line if there is not an adjacent public street or road.
2. Opacity: No person shall cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust from any applicable source such that the dust causes 20 percent opacity or greater during each observation and the total duration of such observations (not necessarily consecutive) is a cumulative 3 minutes or more in any one (1) hour.
Only opacity readings from a single source shall be included in the cumulative total used to determine compliance.
3. Track‐Out
a. No person shall allow track‐out to extend 25 feet or more in length unless at least one of the following three control measures is utilized:
i. Track‐Out Area Improvement: Pave or apply chemical stabilization at sufficient concentration and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface starting from the point of intersection with public paved surface, and extend for a centerline distance of at least 100 feet with an acceptable width to accommodate traffic ingress and egress from the site. ii. Track‐Out Prevention: Check and clean the undercarriage and wheels on all vehicles before leaving unpaved surface or install a properly functioning and well‐maintained track‐out control device(s) that prevents track‐out of soil onto paved public roads. iii. Track‐Out Removal: Remove track‐out from pavement as soon as possible but no later than one hour after it has been deposited on the paved road. If a street sweeper is used to remove any track‐out, only PM10‐efficient street sweepers certified to meet South Coast AQMD Rule 1186 requirementsshall be used. The make and model information and certification documentation of any sweeper used shall be made available upon request. b. Notwithstanding the preceding, all track‐out shall be removed at the conclusion of each workday or evening shift subject to the same condition regarding PM‐10 efficient street sweepers as outlined in Subsection B.3.a.iii. The use of blowers for removal of track‐out is expressly prohibited under any circumstances.
Rule 62.7 – Asbestos – Demolition and Renovation
Rule 62.7 governs demolition and renovation operations and the associated disturbance of asbestos-containing material (ACM) and requires the owner or operator to remove all ACM from a facility being demolished before any activity begins that would break up, dislodge or similarly disturb the ACM or permanently preclude access to the ACM for subsequent removal. Rule 62.7 additionally includes notification requirements for operations where ACM is present.
Rule 74.2 – Architectural Coatings
Rule 74.2 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coatings and limits the VOC content in sealers, coatings, paints and solvents. This rule regulates the VOC contents of paints available during construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during construction and operation of the proposed project must comply with Rule 74.2.
212
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 10 2.1.3 City of Simi Valley
City of Simi Valley General Plan
The Natural Resources Element of the City of Simi Valley’s General Plan contains the following airquality related goals and policies that are applicable to the proposed project:
Goal NR-9 Air Quality. Air Quality in the City and the Simi Valley environs is improved.
Policies
NR-9.1 Regional Cooperation. Ensure that air quality standards are consistent with the Countywide recommendations of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, which are intended to reduce air quality impacts. In addition, cooperate with the Southern California Association of Government’s efforts to implement provisions of the region's Air Quality Management Plan. (Imp A-1, A-2, LU-2, LU-18, NR-2, NR-13) NR-9.3 Improved Technology. Promote and implement state and federal regulations that improve transportation technology, vehicle mileage performance, and cleaner fuels. (Imp A-1, A-2, LU-7, LU-18, IU-10, NR-4, NR-6)
NR-9.5 Dust and Particulate Control. Adopt procedures to regulate and minimize particulate emissions from paved and unpaved roads, parking lots, and building construction activities. (Imp A-1, A-2, LU-2, LU-18, NR-2)4
NR-9.6 Construction and Operation. Evaluate development project applications, including for particulate matter, by using the procedures and thresholds established in the most recent version of the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines as published by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, and ensure that projects incorporate all applicable construction and operation mitigation measures contained therein. (Imp A-1, A-2, LU-2, LU-18, NR-2, NR-13)
2.2 Greenhouse Gas Regulatory Setting
2.2.1 International
Many countries around the globe have made an effort to reduce GHGs since climate change is a global issue.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 1988, the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. 213
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 11 United Nations. The United States participates in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (signed on March 21, 1994). Under the Convention, governments gather and share information on greenhouse gas emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change.
The 2014 UN Climate Change Conference in Lima Peru provided a unique opportunity to engage all countries to assess how developed countries are implementing actions to reduce emissions.
Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty made under the UNFCCC and was the first international agreement to regulate GHG emissions. On December 8, 2012, the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol was adopted. The amendment included: New commitments for Annex I Parties to the Kyoto Protocol who agreed to take on commitments in a second commitment period from 2013 – 2020; a revised list of greenhouse gases (GHG) to be reported on by Parties in the second commitment period; and Amendments to several articles of the Kyoto Protocol which specifically referenced issues pertaining to the first commitment period and which needed to be updated for the second commitment period.
2.2.2 National
Greenhouse Gas Endangerment. On December 2, 2009, the EPA announced that GHGs threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. The EPA also states that GHG emissions from onroad vehicles contribute to that threat. The decision was based on Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) which argued that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act and that the EPA has authority to regulate those emissions.
Clean Vehicles. Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law in 1975 to increase the fuel economy of cars and light duty trucks. The law has become more stringent over time. On May 19, 2009, President Obama put in motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration announced a joint final rule establishing a national program that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States.
The first phase of the national program would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and mediumduty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, equivalent to
35.5 miles per gallon if the automobile industry were to meet this carbon dioxide level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these standards would cut carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012-2016). The second phase of the national program involved proposing new fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for model years 2017 – 2025 by September 1, 2011.
214
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 12 On October 25, 2010, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation proposed the first national standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses. For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that begin in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption by the 2018 model year. For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies are proposing separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 10 percent reduction for gasoline vehicles and 15 percent reduction for diesel vehicles by 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage).
Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards starting in the 2014 model year which would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction in fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions by 2018 model year.
Issued by NHTSA and EPA in March 2020 (published on April 30, 2020 and effective after June 29, 2020), the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule would maintain the CAFE and CO2 standards applicable in model year 2020 for model years 2021 through 2026. The estimated CAFE and CO2 standards for model year 2020 are 43.7 mpg and 204 grams of CO2 per mile for passenger cars and
31.3 mpg and 284 grams of CO2 per mile for light trucks, projecting an overall industry average of 37 mpg, as compared to 46.7 mpg under the standards issued in 2012. This Rule also excludes CO2- equivalent emission improvements associated with air conditioning refrigerants and leakage (and, optionally, offsets for nitrous oxide and methane emissions) after model year 2020.1 Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. On January 1, 2010, the EPA started requiring large emitters of heat-trapping emissions to begin collecting GHG data under a new reporting system. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of greenhouse gas emissions are required to submit annual reports to the EPA.
Climate Adaption Plan. The EPA Plan identifies priority actions the Agency will take to incorporate considerations of climate change into its programs, policies, rules and operations to ensure they are effective under future climatic conditions. The following link provides more information on the EPA Plan: https://www.epa.gov/arc-x/planning-climate-change-adaptation
2.2.3 California
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6. CCR Title 24, Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24) were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency 1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2018. Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2018 / Proposed Rules, The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks 2018. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-08-24/pdf/2018-16820.pdf. 215
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 13 technologies and methods. Although it was not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, electricity production by fossil fuels results in GHG emissions and energy efficient buildings require less electricity. Therefore, increased energy efficiency results in decreased GHG emissions.
The Energy Commission adopted 2008 Standards on April 23, 2008 and Building Standards Commission approved them for publication on September 11, 2008. These updates became effective on August 1, 2009. 2013 and 2016 standards have been approved and became effective July 1, 2014 and January 1, 2016, respectively. 2022 standards were published July 1, 2022 and became effective January 1, 2023.
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11. All buildings for which an application for a building permit is submitted on or after January 1, 2023 must follow the 2022 standards. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases greenhouse gas emissions. The following links provide more information on Title 24, Part 11:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022- building-energy-efficiency
California Green Building Standards. On January 12, 2010, the State Building Standards Commission unanimously adopted updates to the California Green Building Standards Code, which went into effect on January 1, 2011. The Housing and Community Development (HCD) updated CALGreen through the 2015 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle, during the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year. During the 2022-2023 fiscal year, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) updated CALGreen through the 2023 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle.
The Code is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial and school buildings. CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards (Title 24) became effective in 2001 in response to continued efforts to reduce GHG emissions associated with energy consumption. CCR Title 24, Part 11 now require that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting finish materials. One focus of CCR Title 24, Part 11 is water conservation measures, which reduce GHG emissions by reducing electrical consumption associated with pumping and treating water. CCR Title 24, Part 11 has approximately 52 nonresidential mandatory measures and an additional 130 provisions for optional use. Some key mandatory measures for commercial occupancies include specified parking for clean air vehicles, a 20 percent reduction of potable water use within buildings, a 50 percent construction waste diversion from landfills, use of building finish materials that emit low levels of volatile organic compounds, and commissioning for new, nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet.
The CEC estimates that over 30 years the 2022 Energy Code will provide $1.5 billion in consumer benefits and reduce 10 million metric tons of GHG. Changes compared to the 2019 Energy Code include increases to on-site renewable energy generation from solar, increases to electric load flexibility to support grid reliability, reduction of emissions from newly constructed buildings, reduction 216
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 14 of air pollution for improved public health, and increased adoption of environmentally beneficial efficient electric technologies.
The California Green Building Standards Code does not prevent a local jurisdiction from adopting a more stringent code as state law provides methods for local enhancements. The Code recognizes that many jurisdictions have developed existing construction and demolition ordinances, and defers to them as the ruling guidance provided, they provide a minimum 50-percent diversion requirement. The code also provides exemptions for areas not served by construction and demolition recycling infrastructure. State building code provides the minimum standard that buildings need to meet in order to be certified for occupancy. Enforcement is generally through the local building official. The following link provides more on CalGreen Building Standards:
http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx
Executive Order S-3-05. California Governor issued Executive Order S-3-05, GHG Emission, in June 2005, which established the following targets:
• By 2010, California shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, California shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. • By 2050, California shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The executive order directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. To comply with the Executive Order, the secretary of CalEPA created the California Climate Action Team (CAT), made up of members from various state agencies and commissions. The team released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary actions of businesses, local governments, and communities and through State incentive and regulatory programs.
Executive Order S-01-07. Executive Order S-1-07 was issued in 2007 and proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in the State, since it generates more than 40 percent of the State’s GHG emissions. It established a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in the State by at least ten percent by 2020. This Order also directs CARB to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could be adopted as a discrete early-action measure as part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32.
On April 23, 2009 CARB approved the proposed regulation to implement the low carbon fuel standard and began implementation on January 1, 2011. The low carbon fuel standard was anticipated to reduce GHG emissions by about 16 MMT per year by 2020. CARB reported a 7.42% reduction in fuel intensity from 2011 to 2020 as a result of the standard2. CARB approved some amendments to the LCFS in 2 https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/dashboard/dashboard.htm 217
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 15 December 2011, which were implemented on January 1, 2013. In September 2015, the Board approved the re-adoption of the LCFS, which became effective on January 1, 2016, to address procedural deficiencies in the way the original regulation was adopted. In 2018, the Board approved amendments to the regulation, which included strengthening and smoothing the carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030 in-line with California's 2030 GHG emission reduction target enacted through SB 32, adding new crediting opportunities to promote zero emission vehicle adoption, alternative jet fuel, carbon capture and sequestration, and advanced technologies to achieve deep decarbonization in the transportation sector.
The LCFS is designed to encourage the use of cleaner low-carbon transportation fuels in California, encourage the production of those fuels, and therefore, reduce GHG emissions and decrease petroleum dependence in the transportation sector. Separate standards are established for gasoline and diesel fuels and the alternative fuels that can replace each. The standards are “back-loaded”, with more reductions required in the last five years, than the first five years. This schedule allows for the development of advanced fuels that are lower in carbon than today’s fuels and the market penetration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and flexible fuel vehicles.
It is anticipated that compliance with the low carbon fuel standard will be based on a combination of both lower carbon fuels and more efficient vehicles.
Reformulated gasoline mixed with corn-derived ethanol at ten percent by volume and low sulfur diesel fuel represent the baseline fuels. Lower carbon fuels may be ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, or blends of these fuels with gasoline or diesel as appropriate. Compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas also may be low carbon fuels. Hydrogen and electricity, when used in fuel cells or electric vehicles are also considered as low carbon fuels for the low carbon fuel standard.
SB 97. Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) was adopted August 2007 and acknowledges that climate change is a prominent environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. SB 97 directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which is part of the State Resource Agency, to prepare, develop, and transmit to CARB guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, as required by CEQA, by July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency was required to certify and adopt those guidelines by January 1, 2010.
Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97 as stated above, on December 30, 2009 the Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the state CEQA guidelines that address GHG emissions. The CEQA Guidelines Amendments changed 14 sections of the CEQA Guidelines and incorporate GHG language throughout the Guidelines. However, no GHG emissions thresholds of significance are provided and no specific mitigation measures are identified. The GHG emission reduction amendments went into effect on March 18, 2010 and are summarized below:
• Climate action plans and other greenhouse gas reduction plans can be used to determine whether a project has significant impacts, based upon its compliance with the plan. • Local governments are encouraged to quantify the greenhouse gas emissions of proposed projects, noting that they have the freedom to select the models and methodologies that best meet their 218
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 16 needs and circumstances. The section also recommends consideration of several qualitative factors that may be used in the determination of significance, such as the extent to which the given project complies with state, regional, or local GHG reduction plans and policies. OPR does not set or dictate specific thresholds of significance. Consistent with existing CEQA Guidelines, OPR encourages local governments to develop and publish their own thresholds of significance for GHG impacts assessment.
• When creating their own thresholds of significance, local governments may consider the thresholds of significance adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts. • New amendments include guidelines for determining methods to mitigate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. • OPR is clear to state that “to qualify as mitigation, specific measures from an existing plan must be identified and incorporated into the project; general compliance with a plan, by itself, is not mitigation.”
• OPR’s emphasizes the advantages of analyzing GHG impacts on an institutional, programmatic level. OPR therefore approves tiering of environmental analyses and highlights some benefits of such an approach.
• Environmental impact reports (EIRs) must specifically consider a project's energy use and energy efficiency potential.
AB 32. The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that greenhouse gases emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. “Greenhouse gases” as defined under AB 32 include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. ARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of greenhouse gases. AB 32 states the following:
Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.
The ARB Board approved the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions level of 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) on December 6, 2007 (California Air Resources Board 2007).
Therefore, emissions generated in California in 2020 were required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCO2e. Emissions in 2020 in a “business as usual” scenario were estimated to be 596 MMTCO2e.
Under AB 32, the ARB published its Final Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California. Discrete early action measures are currently underway or are enforceable by January 1, 2010. The ARB has 44 early action measures that apply to the transportation, commercial, forestry, agriculture, cement, oil and gas, fire suppression, fuels, education, energy efficiency, electricity, and waste sectors. Of these early action measures, nine are considered discrete early action measures, as they are regulatory and enforceable by January 1, 2010. 219
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 17 The ARB estimates that the 44 recommendations are expected to result in reductions of at least 42 MMTCO2e by 2020, representing approximately 25 percent of the 2020 target.
The ARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) contains measures designed to reduce the State’s emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 (California Air Resources Board 2008). The Scoping Plan identifies recommended measures for multiple greenhouse gas emission sectors and the associated emission reductions needed to achieve the year 2020 emissions target—each sector has a different emission reduction target. Most of the measures target the transportation and electricity sectors. As stated in the Scoping Plan, the key elements of the strategy for achieving the 2020 greenhouse gas target included:
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards;
• Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent; • Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system;
• Establishing targets for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, Including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and
• Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
In addition, the Scoping Plan differentiates between “capped” and “uncapped” strategies. “Capped” strategies are subject to the proposed cap-and-trade program. The Scoping Plan states that the inclusion of these emissions within the cap-and trade program will help ensure that the year 2020 emission targets are met despite some degree of uncertainty in the emission reduction estimates for any individual measure. Implementation of the capped strategies was calculated to achieve a sufficient amount of reductions by 2020 to achieve the emission target contained in AB 32. “Uncapped” strategies that will not be subject to the cap-and-trade emissions caps and requirements are provided as a margin of safety by accounting for additional greenhouse gas emission reductions.4 The goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels was achieved in 2016. The further goal of reducing emission levels by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 was introduced in SB 32 on September 8, 2016.
SB 375. Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) was adopted September 2008 and aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG emission reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternate planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs Regional 220
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 18 Transportation Plan (RTP). CARB, in consultation with each MPO, will provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO’s sustainable communities strategy or alternate planning strategy for consistency with its assigned targets.
The proposed project is located within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which has authority to develop the SCS or APS. For the SCAG region, the targets set by CARB are at eight percent below 2005 per capita GHG emissions levels by 2020 and 13 percent below 2005 per capita GHG emissions levels by 2035. On April 4, 2012, SCAG adopted the 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which meets the CARB emission reduction requirements.
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council approved and fully adopted the Connect SoCal (2020– 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy), and the addendum to the Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report. Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. Connect SoCal outlines more than $638 billion in transportation system investments through 2045. Connect SoCal is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry and utilize resources more efficiently. By integrating the Forecasted Development Pattern with a suite of financially constrained transportation investments, Connect SoCal can reach the regional target of reducing greenhouse gases, or GHGs, from autos and light-duty trucks by 8 percent per capita by 2020, and 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels).
City and County land use policies, including General Plans, are not required to be consistent with the RTP and associated SCS or APS. However, new provisions of CEQA would incentivize, through streamlining and other provisions, qualified projects that are consistent with an approved SCS or APS and categorized as “transit priority projects.”
Assembly Bill 939, Assembly Bill 341, and Senate Bill 1374. Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) requires that each jurisdiction in California to divert at least 50 percent of its waste away from landfills, whether through waste reduction, recycling or other means. AB 341 requires at least 75 percent of generated waste be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. Senate Bill 1374 (SB 1374) requires the California Integrated Waste Management Board to adopt a model ordinance by March 1, 2004 suitable for adoption by any local agency to require 50 to 75 percent diversion of construction and demolition of waste materials from landfills.
Executive Order S-13-08. Executive Order S-13-08 indicates that “climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase 221
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 19 temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in the order, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (California Natural Resource Agency 2009) was adopted, which is the “… first statewide, multi-sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.
Executive Order B-30-15. Executive Order B-30-15, establishing a new interim statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, was signed by Governor Brown in April 2015.
Executive Order B-29-15. Executive Order B-29-15, mandates a statewide 25% reduction in potable water usage and was signed into law on April 1, 2015.
Executive Order B-37-16. Executive Order B-37-16, continuing the State’s adopted water reduction, was signed into law on May 9, 2016. The water reduction builds off the mandatory 25% reduction called for in EO B-29-15.
Executive Order N-79-20. Executive Order N-79-20 was signed into law on September 23, 2020 and mandates 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks be zero-emission by 2035; 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state be zero-emission vehicles by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks; and to transition to 100 percent zeroemission off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035 where feasible.
2.2.4 Local
City of Simi Valley
City of Simi Valley Climate Action Plan
The City of Simi Valley adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) June 4, 2012. The plan inventoried existing CO2 emissions, projected emissions growth to 2030, and evaluated a wide range of CO2 reduction measures. Measures included in the Climate Action Plan focus on transportation, energy, area source, water, and solid waste. The CAP reflects guidance from the AB-32 Scoping Plan which recommends that local governments pursue reduction goals of at or below 1990 GHG emissions, approximated at 15% below baseline year 2010 GHG emissions for Simi Valley, by year 2020 and 30% below 2010 emissions by year 2035.
222
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Setting
20 3.0 Setting
3.1 Existing Physical Setting
The project site is located in the City of Simi Valley, which is part of the South Central Coast Air Basin (Air Basin) that includes San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County, and Ventura County. Ventura County is divided into two airsheds for air quality planning purposes: the Ojai Valley Airshed and the Oxnard Plain Airshed.
3.1.1 Local Climate and Meteorology
The regional climate within the Air Basin is dominated by the intensity and location of the semi‐permanent Pacific high pressure zone, which, from spring to fall, induces regionalsubsidence and temperature inversion layers. The region is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, and moderate humidity, with the predominate wind patterns follow a diurnal land/sea breeze cycle, with typical daytime winds from the west. The diurnal land/sea breeze pattern is a common occurrence in the Air Basin and it recirculates air contaminants. Air pollutant are pushed toward the ocean during the early morning by the land breeze and toward the east during the afternoon, by the sea breeze. This creates a “sloshing” effect, causing pollutants to remain in the area for several days. This pollutant “sloshing” effect happens most predominately from May through October, which is the “smog” season for the Air Basin.
The temperature and precipitation levels for the City of Thousand Oaks, closest station with data, are in Table 3. Table 3 shows that July is typically the warmest month and January is typically the coolest month. Rainfall in the project area varies considerably in both time and space. Almost all the annual rainfall comes from the fringes of mid-latitude storms from late November to early April, with summers being almost completely dry.
Table 3: Meteorological Summary
Month
Temperature (˚F) Average Precipitation
Average High Average Low (inches)
January 61.7 43.2 2.94
February 65.0 45.0 3.41
March 67.9 45.4 0.99
April 71.8 47.2 0.33
May 73.7 51.5 0.33
June 80.9 55.0 0.00
July 85.9 60.0 0.00
August 84.5 58.9 0.01
September 81.3 55.1 0.07
October 74.7 52.4 1.52
November 71.3 48.0 0.21
December 65.2 43.9 0.67
Annual Average 73.7 50.5 10.5
Notes:
1 Source: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca1758 223
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Setting
21 3.1.2 Local Air Quality
The Ventura County APCD operates and maintains monitoring stations located throughout the region.
The purpose of these stations is to measure concentrations of the criteria pollutants and determine whether the ambient air quality meets the NAAQS and the CAAQS. The nearest air monitoring station to the project site is the Simi Valley Cochrane Street Monitoring Station (Simi Valley Station). The Simi Valley Station is located approximately 0.7 miles northwest of the project site at 5400 Cochrane Street.
Table 4 presents the monitored pollutant levels within the vicinity. However, it should be noted that due to the air monitoring station distance from the project site, recorded air pollution levels at the air monitoring station reflect with varying degrees of accuracy, local air quality conditions at the project site.
Table 4: Local Area Air Quality Levels
Year
Pollutant (Standard)2 2020 2021 2022
Ozone:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.108 0.090 0.094
Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 5 0 0
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.095 0.077 0.082
Days > NAAQS (0.07 ppm) 22 8 10
Days > CAAQS (0.070 ppm) 25 8 11
Carbon Monoxide:
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) * * *
Days > NAAQS (9 ppm) * * *
Nitrogen Dioxide:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.042 0.035 0.046
Days > NAAQS (0.25 ppm) 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) * * *
Days > CAAQS (0.25 ppm) * * *
Inhalable Particulates (PM10):
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (ug/m3) 90.5 103.7 45.8
Days > NAAQS (150 ug/m3) 0 0 0
Days > CAAQS (50 ug/m3) 6 3 0
Annual Average (ug/m3) 20.8 22.7 21.4
Annual > NAAQS (50 ug/m3) No No No
Annual > CAAQS (20 ug/m3) Yes Yes Yes
Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM2.5):
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (ug/m3) 34.9 32.9 22.7
Days > NAAQS (35 ug/m3) 0 0 0
Annual Average (ug/m3) 7.5 8.6 7.1
Annual > NAAQS (15 ug/m3) No No No
Annual > CAAQS (12 ug/m3) No No No
1. Source: obtained from https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php 2 CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ppm = parts per million * No data and/or insufficient data available.
224
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Setting
22 The monitoring data presented in Table 4 shows that ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are the air pollutants of primary concern in the project area, which are detailed below.
Ozone
During the 2020 to 2022 monitoring period, the State 1-hour concentration standard for ozone was exceeded for five days in 2020 at the Simi Valley Station. The State 8-hour ozone standard has been exceeded between eight and 25 days over the past three years at the Simi Valley Station. The Federal 8-hour ozone standard has been exceeded between eight and 22 days over the past three years at the Simi Valley Station.
Carbon Monoxide
CO is another important pollutant that is due mainly to motor vehicles. The Simi Valley Station did not record an exceedance of the state or federal 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards for the last three years.
Nitrogen Dioxide
The Simi Valley Station did not record an exceedance of the State or Federal NO2 standards for the last three years.
Sulfur Dioxide
The Simi Valley Station did not record an exceedance of the State SO2 standards for the last three years.
Particulate Matter
During the 2020 to 2022 monitoring period, the Federal 24-hour and annual concentration standards for PM10 have not been exceeded at the Simi Valley Station. During the same time period, the State 24-hour standard was exceeded six times in 2020 and three times in 2021 and the annual standard was exceeded each year.
During the 2020 to 2022 monitoring period, the Federal 24-hour standard for PM2.5 was not exceeded at the Simi Valley Station
According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particles (PM10 and PM2.5). People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing these fine particles. People with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in fine particles. Children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive are smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive, because many breathe through their mouths during exercise.
3.1.3 Attainment Status
The EPA and the ARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered 225
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Setting
23 “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Each standard has a different definition, or ‘form’ of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the Federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the three-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard.
The County has been designated by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a nonattainment area for ozone and PM10. Currently, the Air Basin is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for CO, SO2, NO2, and PM2.5.
3.2 Greenhouse Gases
Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG), play a critical role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses. Transportation is responsible for 41 percent of the State’s greenhouse gas emissions, followed by electricity generation. Emissions of CO2 and nitrous oxide (NO2) are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean. Table 5 provides a description of each of the greenhouse gases and their global warming potential.
Additional information is available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm <Table 5 on next page>
226
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Setting
24 Table 5: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description and Physical Properties Sources Nitrous oxide
Nitrous oxide (N20),also known as laughing gas is a
colorless gas. It has a lifetime of 114 years. Its global warming potential is 298.
Microbial processes in soil and water,
fuel combustion, and industrial
processes. In addition to agricultural
sources, some industrial processes
(nylon production, nitric acid
production) also emit N20.
Methane
Methane (CH4) is a flammable gas and is the main
component of natural gas. It has a lifetime of 12 years.
Its global warming potential is 25.
A natural source of CH4 is from the
decay of organic matter. Methane is
extracted from geological deposits
(natural gas fields). Other sources are
from the decay of organic material in
landfills, fermentation of manure, and
cattle farming.
Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless, colorless, natural greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide’s global warming
potential is 1. The concentration in 2005 was 379 parts per million (ppm), which is an increase of about 1.4
ppm per year since 1960.
Natural sources include decomposition
of dead organic matter; respiration of
bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus;
evaporation from oceans; and volcanic
outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are
from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and
wood.
Chlorofluorocarbons
CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and
chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of
air at the earth’s surface). They are gases formed
synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in
methane or methane with chlorine and/or fluorine
atoms. Global warming potentials range from 3,800 to
8,100.
Chlorofluorocarbons were synthesized
in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol
propellants, and cleaning solvents. They
destroy stratospheric ozone, therefore
their production was stopped as
required by the Montreal Protocol.
Hydrofluorocarbons
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are a group of greenhouse
gases containing carbon, chlorine, and at least one
hydrogen atom. Global warming potentials range from
140 to 11,700.
Hydrofluorocarbons are synthetic
manmade chemicals used as a
substitute for chlorofluorocarbons in
applications such as automobile air
conditioners and refrigerants.
Perfluorocarbons
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular
structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays
about 60 kilometers above the Earth's surface. They
have a lifetime 10,000 to 50,000 years. They have a
global warming potential range of 6,200 to 9,500.
Two main sources of perfluorocarbons
are primary aluminum production and
semiconductor manufacturing.
Sulfur
hexafluoride
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless,
colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a
lifetime of 3,200 years. It has a high global warming
potential, 23,900.
This gas is manmade and used for
insulation in electric power transmission
equipment, in the magnesium industry,
in semiconductor manufacturing, and as
a tracer gas for leak detection.
Notes:
1. Sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014a and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014b. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html 227
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Modeling Parameters and Assumptions 25 4.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
4.1 Construction
Typical emission rates from construction activities were obtained from CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.28 The CalEEMod program uses the EMFAC2017 computer program to calculate the emission rates specific for the southwestern portion of Ventura County for construction-related employee vehicle trips and the OFFROAD2011 computer program to calculate emission rates for heavy truck operations.
EMFAC2017 and OFFROAD2011 are computer programs generated by CARB that calculates composite emission rates for vehicles. Emission rates are reported by the program in grams per trip and grams per mile or grams per running hour. Using CalEEMod, the peak daily air pollutant emissions were calculated and presented below. These emissions represent the highest level of emissions for each of the construction phases in terms of air pollutant emissions.
The analysis assesses the emissions associated with the construction of the proposed project as indicated in Table 1. The proposed project is to be operational in by 2025. Therefore, using CalEEMod default timelines for construction phases and the proposed operational date, the proposed project was modeled as beginning construction no earlier than June 2024 and being completed by June 2025. The phases of the construction activities which have been analyzed below are: 1) demolition, 2) grading, 3) building, 4) paving, and 5) architectural coating. A conservative estimate of 10,000 cubic yards of soil export was assumed for the grading phase. For details on construction modeling and construction equipment for each phase, please see Appendix A.
4.2 Operations
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. Both mobile and area sources generate operational emissions. Area source emissions arise from consumer product usage, heaters that consume natural gas, gasoline-powered landscape equipment, and architectural coatings (painting). Mobile source emissions from motor vehicles are the largest single long-term source of air pollutants from the operation of the Project. Small amounts of emissions would also occur from area sources such as the consumption of natural gas for heating, hearths, from landscaping emissions, and consumer product usage. The operational emissions were estimated using the latest version of CalEEMod.
Mobile Sources
Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle miles generated from the proposed project. The vehicle trips associated with the proposed project are based upon the trip generation rates provided by TJW Engineering which uses the ITE 11 th Trip Generation Manual. The trip generation
shows a trip generation rate of 6.74 trips per dwelling unit with the project generating a total of 472 trips per day.
The program then applies the emission factors for each trip which is provided by the EMFAC2017 model to determine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions. The CalEEMod default trip lengths were used in this analysis. Please see CalEEMod output comments sections in Appendix A for details. 228
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Modeling Parameters and Assumptions 26 Area Sources
Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural coatings. Landscape maintenance includes fuel combustion emissions from equipment such as lawn mowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers, as well as air compressors, generators, and pumps. As specifics were not known about the landscaping equipment fleet, CalEEMod defaults were used to estimate emissions from landscaping equipment.
Energy Usage
2022.1.1.28 CalEEMod defaults were utilized.
229
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Thresholds of Significance
27 5.0 Thresholds of Significance
5.1 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
5.1.1 CEQA Guidelines for Air Quality
The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine if a project would have a significant impact on air quality, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the project must be evaluated.
The following air quality significance thresholds are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A significant impact would occur if the project would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard; c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
While the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the Lead Agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, VCAPCD recommends that its quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. If the Lead Agency finds that the project has the potential to exceed these air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered to have significant air quality impacts.
5.1.2 Regional Significance Thresholds
The following CEQA significance thresholds for operational emissions are established for the Basin:
• 25 pounds per day (lbs/day) of VOC
• 25 lbs/day of NOx
Projects in the basin with operational-related emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds are considered to be significant under VCAPCD guidelines. Additionally, the City of Simi Valley has established a threshold of 13.7 tons per year for both VOC and NOX emissions. 230
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Thresholds of Significance
28 5.2 Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance
5.2.1 CEQA Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas
The VCAPCD has not yet adopted any GHG thresholds. However, at its September 13, 2011 Board meeting, the Ventura County Air Pollution Control Board (VCAPCB) requested that VCAPCD staff report back on possible GHG significance thresholds for evaluating GHG impacts of land use projects in Ventura County under CEQA. As such, the VCAPCD staff prepared the Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance Options for Land Use Development Projects in Ventura County, November 8, 2011. The Report presented a number of options for setting GHG significance thresholds and analyzed some of the adopted thresholds as well as others that were currently under consideration by other air districts in California. The report concluded that establishing local CEQA significance thresholds for global‐scale environmental concerns is a major challenge, and that each of the numerous approaches and options that have been put forth to assess GHG emissions from land use development projects for CEQA purposes has their own set of advantages and disadvantages. While the report did not establish a specific approach that would be used by the VCAPCD to analyze GHG impacts under CEQA, it indicated that because Ventura County is adjacent to the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction and is a part of the SCAG region, it would be most desirable for the VCAPCD to set local GHG emission thresholds of significance for land use development projects at levels consistent with those set by the SCAQMD. Therefore, based on the Report recommendations, the VCAPCD would continue to evaluate and develop suitable interim GHG threshold options for Ventura County with preference for GHG threshold consistency with the SCAQMD and the SCAG region.
This analysis follows guidance from the South Coast AQMD’s Interim CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds (SCAQMD 2008). On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold for projects where the SCAQMD is lead agency. As it has been determined above that the SCAQMD recommendations are to be followed in determining significance of GHG emissions for the Project, this approach will be utilized. South Coast AQMD’s thresholds are a tiered approach; projects may be determined to be less than significant under each tier or require further analysis under subsequent tiers. As identified in the Draft Guidance Document, the five tiers are:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA.
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local greenhouse gas reduction plan, it does not have significant greenhouse gas emissions.
• Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose but must be consistent. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to a project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are under one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:
- All land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
231
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Thresholds of Significance
29 - Based on land use types: residential is 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial is 1,400 MTCO2e per year; and mixed use is 3,000 MTCO2e per year • Tier 4 has the following options:
- Option 1: Reduce emissions from business as usual by a certain percentage; this percentage is currently undefined
- Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures - Option 3: Year 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and employees: 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans; - Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans
• Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.
Tier 1 and Tier 2 thresholds are based on planning consistency. This approach, which is referred to in the CEQA Guidelines as “tiering,” allows agencies to rely on programmatic analysis of GHG emissions to determine that subsequent development consistent with the regional plan would result in incremental GHG emissions contribution that represent a less than significant contribution to cumulative effects.
Tier 3 significance screening levels from SCAQMD guidance are based on the concept of establishing a 90 percent GHG emission market capture rate. A 90 percent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from new development projects would be subject to CEQA analysis and mitigation. The market capture rate of 90 percent was developed to capture a substantial fraction of GHG emissions from new development projects while excluding small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This market capture rate approach is based on guidance from the CAPCOA report CEQA & Climate Change, dated January 2008 (CAPCOA 2008). Following rationale presented in the CAPCOA Guidance, the aggregate emissions from all projects with individual annual emissions that are equal to or less than the identified screening levels for 90 percent market capture rate would not impede achievement of the statewide GHG emissions reduction targets. SCAQMD recommends Tier 3 if there is no qualified plan.
Tier 4 and Tier 5 interim thresholds are intended to demonstrate project consistency with the AB 32 goal of achieving 1990 emission levels by 2020 and the SB 32 goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Therefore, as the project’s proposed use is residential use this analysis utilizes SCAQMD’s Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e.
5.3 Toxic Air Contaminants
Non criteria pollutants such as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) or Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are also regulated by the VCAPCD. The VCAPCD requires that projects that could potentially increase cancer risk to between 1 and 10 in one million need to implement toxics best available control technology (T-BACT) or impose the most effective emission limitation, emission control device or 232
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Thresholds of Significance
30 control technique to reduce the cancer risk. At no time shall the project increase the cancer risk to over 10 in one million or a health hazard index (chronic and acute) greater than one. Projects creating cancer risks less than one in one million are not required to implement TBACT technology.
Therefore, the threshold for toxic air contaminants (TACs) is a maximum incremental cancer risk of 10 per million and a non-cancer (acute and chronic) hazard index of 1.0 or greater. An exceedance to these values would be considered a significant impact.
233
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
31 6.0 Air Quality Emissions Impact
6.1 Construction Air Quality Emissions Impact
The latest version of CalEEMod was used to estimate the construction emissions. CalEEMod output calculations are provided in Appendix A.
6.1.1 Temporary Construction Emissions
The VCAPCD Guidelines details that construction‐related ROG, NOx, and fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions should be quantified. The worst-case construction emissions for the project are shown in Table 6. Construction is anticipated to last from 2024 to 2025.
As detailed in the VCAPCD Guidelines, the VCAPCD has not established quantitative thresholds for construction. However, it is recommended that construction emissions be compared to the thresholds established for operational emissions. As shown in Table 6, unmitigated construction emissions would exceed both thresholds. Therefore, standard conditions have been included to require equipment during grading to have engine ratings of Tier 3 or higher as well as limit the VOC content of interior and exterior paint to 18 grams per liter (g/L). With both standard conditions, the project would be below the VCAPCD thresholds and would therefore have a less than significant impact.
Table 6: Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated
2024 1.91 29.10 19.10 0.09 6.27 2.87
2025 67.70 11.60 16.60 0.03 1.49 0.64
Maximum Daily Emissions 67.70 29.10 19.10 0.09 6.27 2.87 VCAPCD Threshold 25 25 * * * *
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes No No No No
With Standard Conditions of Approval
2024 1.71 24.40 18.00 0.09 5.98 2.60
2025 24.95 11.60 16.60 0.03 1.49 0.64
Maximum Daily Emissions 24.95 24.40 18.00 0.09 5.98 2.60 VCAPCD Threshold 25 25 * * * *
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.28
The VCAPCD has not established quantitative thresholds for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). However, the VCAPCD indicates that a project that may generate fugitive dust emissions in such quantities as to cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons, or which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person, or which may cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property would have a significant air quality impact.
234
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
32 In order to reduce air quality impacts from construction activities, the VCAPCD requires that all projects minimize construction emissions through adherence to the VCAPCD Rule 55 fugitive dust control measures and minimize ROG through adherence to the VCAPCD Rule 74.2 architectural coating VOC content limits. Compliance with VCAPCD Rules 55 and 74.2 would ensure that construction emission would not be generated in such quantities as to cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons, or that may endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such person or the public. Therefore, a less than significant air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project.
6.1.3 Odors
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials such as asphalt pavement. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process are of short-term in nature and the odor emissions are expected cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor producing materials. Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during construction of the project, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore should not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors. Due to the short-term nature and limited amounts of odor producing materials being utilized, no significant impact related to odors would occur during construction of the proposed project.
Land uses and industrial operations typically associated with odor complains include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed operations including a residential use that includes 70 multifamily dwelling units. The anticipated uses for the proposed residential use are not typically associated with objectionable odors. Therefore, no significant impact related to odors would occur during the on-going operations of the proposed project.
6.2 Operational Air Quality Emissions Impact
6.2.1 Operational Emissions
The operations-related criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through the use of CalEEMod model. The operating emissions were based on year 2025, which is the anticipated opening year for the project. The summer and winter emissions created by the proposed project’s long-term operations were calculated and the highest emissions from either summer or winter are summarized in Table 7. CalEEMod output calculations for the project are provided in Appendix A.
Table 7: Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Pounds per Day
Area Sources2 3.14 0.06 6.22 0.00 0.01 0.00
Energy Usage3 0.01 0.24 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02
Mobile Sources4 2.14 1.92 15.30 0.04 3.28 0.85
235
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
33 Total Emissions 5.29 2.22 21.62 0.04 3.31 0.87
VCAPCD Threshold 25 25 * * * *
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Tons per Year
Area Sources2 0.51 0.01 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Usage3 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile Sources4 0.38 0.34 2.72 0.01 0.59 0.15
Total Emissions 0.89 0.39 3.30 0.01 0.60 0.16
City of Simi Valley Threshold 13.7 13.7 * * * *
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.28
2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from on-site natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.
The data in Table 9 shows that emissions from the operation of the proposed project does not exceed VCAPCD or City thresholds. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.
6.3 CO Hot Spot Emissions
CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the State and Federal CO standards which were presented in above in Section 5.0.
To determine if the proposed project could cause emission levels in excess of the CO standards discussed above in Section 5.0, a sensitivity analysis is typically conducted to determine the potential for CO “hot spots” at a number of intersections in the general project vicinity. Because of reduced speeds and vehicle queuing, “hot spots” potentially can occur at high traffic volume intersections with a Level of Service E or worse.
Micro-scale air quality emissions have traditionally been analyzed in environmental documents where the air basin was a non-attainment area for CO. However, the VCAPCD has demonstrated in the CO attainment redesignation request to EPA that there are no “hot spots” anywhere in the air basin, even at intersections with much higher volumes, much worse congestion, and much higher background CO levels than anywhere in Orange County. If the worst-case intersections in the air basin have no “hot spot” potential, any local impacts will be below thresholds.
Traffic analysis from TJW Engineering showed that the project would generate 472 average daily trips.
The 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan) showed that an intersection which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day would not violate the CO standard. The volume of traffic at project buildout would be well below 100,000 vehicles and below the necessary volume to even get close to causing a violation of the CO standard. Therefore, no CO “hot spot” modeling was performed and no significant long-term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality with the on-going use of the proposed project. 236
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
34 6.4 Asbestos
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by state, federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 1986. All types of asbestos are hazardous and may cause lung disease and cancer.
VCAPCD Rule 62.7 requires the removal all asbestos containing material (ACM) from a facility being demolished before any activity begins that would break up, dislodge or similarly disturb the ACM or permanently preclude access to the ACM for subsequent removal. The project will comply with all requirements in Rule 62.7 should ACM be present during demolition of the existing onsite structures.
6.5 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area.
However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which travel well out of the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered, would cover an even larger area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the project’s air quality must be generic by nature.
For cumulative impacts from the project, the analysis must specifically evaluate contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants for which the Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for the CAAQS and NAAQS. If the project does not exceed thresholds and is determined to have less than-significant project-specific impacts, it may still contribute to a significant cumulative air quality impact if the emissions from the project, in combination with the emissions from other proposed or reasonably foreseeable future projects, are in excess of established thresholds. However, the project would only be considered to have a significant cumulative impact if the project’s contribution accounts for a significant proportion of the cumulative total emissions (i.e., it represents a “cumulatively considerable contribution” to the cumulative air quality impact).
The project area is out of attainment for O3 for federal standards. Construction and operation of cumulative projects will further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the Basin. As discussed previously, the construction and operation related emissions would not result in significant impacts to air quality. Construction will be short-term and consistent with the size and scale of the project. Construction of the project will potentially be conducted at the same time and in the same general vicinity as other major construction projects; however, project construction is not anticipated to result in a cumulatively significant impact related to particulate matter emissions as the other identified cumulative projects are not close enough to the project site to generate cumulatively considerable particulate matter emission levels. Operation of the project will not exceed any thresolds of significance. Impacts would be less than significant. 237
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
35 6.6 Air Quality Compliance
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable General Plans and Regional Plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125).
According to the VCAPCD, a project is non-conforming if it conflicts with or delays implementation of any applicable attainment or maintenance plan.
A project is conforming if it complies with all applicable District rules and regulations, complies with all proposed control measures that are not yet adopted from the applicable plan(s), and is consistent with the growth forecasts in the applicable plan(s) (or is directly included in the applicable plan). Conformity with growth forecasts can be established by demonstrating that the project is consistent with the land use plan that was used to generate the growth forecast. An example of a non-conforming project would be one that increases the gross number of dwelling units, increases the number of trips, and/or increases the overall vehicle miles traveled in an affected area (relative to the applicable land use plan).
The project site is located within the City of Simi Valley. The project site lot is designated as general commercial and medium-density residential. As shown by the results of this air analysis, the project's emissions do not exceed any VCAPCD or City thresholds during either short-term construction or longterm operation of the project. Therefore, as the project is a commercial use, the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the Attainment Plan assumptions for the project site.
Per data from SCAG’s 2024 Connect SoCal population data, the City of Simi Valley had a population of 126,800 in 2019 and is anticipated to have a population of 126,275 in 2025, a decrease of 525.3 The project is estimated to have 211 residents, which would be approximately 0.166% of the 2019 Simi Valley population and 0.167% of the 2025 Simi Valley population. The population change from the project would be negligible compared to the existing and future population and is therefore consistent with AQMP growth assumptions.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with implementation of the VDAPCD Attainment Plans, impacts are considered to be less than significant. 3 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/03_scag_drtp24_citytier2taz_092523.xlsx?1695685277. 2025 data has been interpolated from the provided 2019 and 2035 data. 238
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
36 7.0 Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
7.1 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
The greenhouse gas emissions from project construction equipment and worker vehicles are shown in Table 8. The emissions are from all phases of construction. Construction-related emissions are amortized over a 30-year period in conjunction with the proposed project’s operational emissions as recommended by Association of Environmental Processionals (AEP 2007).
The total construction emissions amortized over a period of 30 years are estimated at 15.57 metric tons of CO2e per year. Annual CalEEMod output calculations are provided in Appendix A. Construction is anticipated to last from 2024 through 2025.
Table 8: Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Year
Metric Tons Per Year
Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e (MT)
2024 0.00 298.00 298.00 0.01 0.02 303.00
2025 0.00 171.00 171.00 0.01 0.01 173.00
Total 0.00 460.00 460.00 0.02 0.03 476.00
Annualized Construction Emissions 15.87
Notes:
1. MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide).
2. The emissions are averaged over 30 years.
* CalEEMod output (Appendix A)
7.2 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
Operational emissions occur over the life of the project. Table 9 shows that the total for the proposed project’s emissions (baseline emissions without credit for any reductions from sustainable design and/or regulatory requirements) would be 790.67 metric tons of CO2e per year. These emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year discussed in Section
5.2.1. Therefore, the project's GHG emissions are considered to be less than significant. Annual CalEEMod output calculations for the project are provided in Appendix A. <Table 9, next page>
239
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
37 Table 9: Opening Year Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)1
Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area Sources2 0.00 1.63 1.63 0.00 0.00 1.75
Energy Usage3 0.00 155.00 155.00 0.01 0.00 156.00
Mobile Sources4 0.00 583.00 583.00 0.03 0.03 593.00
Solid Waste5 4.63 0.00 4.63 0.46 0.00 16.20
Water6 0.84 4.52 5.37 0.09 0.00 8.15
Subtotal Emissions 5.47 744.15 749.63 0.59 0.03 775.10
Amortized Construction Emissions 15.87
Total Emissions 790.97
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.28
2 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment. 3 Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 5 Solid waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 6 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 7 Construction GHG emissions based on a 30-year amortization rate.
7.3 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency
The proposed project could have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The project’s GHG impacts are evaluated by assessing the project’s consistency with applicable statewide, regional, and local GHG reduction plans and strategies.
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) encourages lead agencies to make use of programmatic mitigation plans and programs from which to tier when they perform individual project analyses. The City has adopted the City of Simi Valley CAP which encourages and requires applicable projects to implement energy efficiency measures. In addition, the California Climate Action Team (CAT) Report provides recommendations for specific emission reduction strategies for reducing GHG emissions and reaching the targets established in AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05. On a statewide level, the 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan provides measures to achieve AB 32 targets. Thus, if the project complies with these plans, policies, regulations, and requirements, the project would result in a less than significant impact because it would be consistent with the overarching state, regional, and local plans for GHG reduction.
A consistency analysis is provided below and describes the project’s compliance with or exceedance of performance-based standards included in the regulations outlined in the applicable portions of the City of Simi Valley CAP.
City of Simi Valley CAP Consistency Analysis
The focus of the City’s updated CAP included promoting energy- and water-efficient buildings, smart growth and clean transit, zero waste policies, and increased local energy generation and water resources. Table 10 summarizes applicable reduction strategies from the CAP and evaluates project 240
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
38 consistency with each strategy. The project would be consistent with all applicable CAP reduction strategies; therefore, the project would not conflict with the CAP.
Table 10: Project Consistency with City of Simi Valley Climate Action Plan Measure Summary Project Consistency
Energy
R2‐E1: Residential Energy
Efficiency Program
Increases the energy efficiency requirements for
new development to 20%, a 10% point increase
from the minimum requirements of the City
measures
Consistent. The project will comply
with energy efficient requirements.
Solid Waste
R2‐W1: City Diversion Program Implements a Citywide waste diversion goal of diverting 75% of all waste from landfills
Consistent. The project will comply
with waste diversion requirements.
R2‐W2: Construction Diversion
Program
Implements a Citywide construction waste
diversion goal of diverting 85% of all construction
and demolition waste from landfills
Consistent. The project will comply
with waste diversion requirements.
Transportation
R2-T3/M2-T3: Land Use-Based
Trip and VMT Reduction
Policies
Reduce VMT by increasing population density and
creating walkable neighborhoods
Consistent. The project will be
located within a quarter mile of a
grocery store, numerous
restaurants, and other commercial
uses.
Therefore, the project will not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impacts are considered to be less than significant.
241
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA
39 8.0 Energy Analysis
Information from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.28 Daily and Annual Outputs contained in the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses above was utilized for this analysis. The CalEEMod outputs detail project related construction equipment, transportation energy demands, and facility energy demands.
8.1 Construction Energy Demand
8.1.1 Construction Equipment Electricity Usage Estimates Electrical service will be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). Based on the 2017 National Construction Estimator, Richard Pray (2017)4, the typical power cost per 1,000 square feet of building construction per month is estimated to be $2.32. The project plans to develop the site with 104,020 square feet of new multi-family houses over the course of approximately 13 months.5 Based on Table 11, the total power cost of the on-site electricity usage during the construction of the proposed project is estimated to be approximately $3,137.24 As shown in Table 11, the total electricity usage from Project construction related activities is estimated to be approximately 49,019 kWh.6 Table 11: Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage Power Cost (per 1,000 square
foot of building per month of
construction)
Total Building
Size (1,000
Square Foot)1
Construction
Duration
(months)
Total Project
Construction
Power Cost
$2.32 104.02 13 $3,137.24
Cost per kWh
Total Project Construction
Electricity Usage (kWh)
$0.06 48,218
*Assumes the project will be under the GS-1 General Service rate under SCE. 4 Pray, Richard. 2017 National Construction Estimator. Carlsbad: Craftsman Book Company, 2017. 5 As stated in the project description, the project involves the demolition of approximately 280,000 square feet of existing buildings. 6 Southern California Edison (SCE). Rates & Pricing Choices: General Service/Industrial Rates. https://library.sce.com/content/dam/sce-doclib/public/regulatory/historical/electric/2020/schedules/general-service-&-industrialrates/ELECTRIC_SCHEDULES_GS-1_2020.pdf 242
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA
40 8.1.2 Construction Equipment Fuel Estimates
Using the CalEEMod data input, the project’s construction phase would consume electricity and fossil fuels as a single energy demand, that is, once construction is completed their use would cease. CARB’s 2017 Emissions Factors Tables show that on average aggregate fuel consumption (gasoline and diesel fuel) would be approximately 18.5 hp-hr-gal.7 As presented in Table 12 below, project construction activities would consume an estimated 24,738 gallons of diesel fuel.
Table 12: Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates Phase
Number
of Days Offroad Equipment Type
Amoun
t
Usage
Hours
Horse
Power
Load
Factor
HP
hrs/da
y
Total Fuel
Consumptio
n
(gal diesel
fuel)1
Demolition
20 Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 33 0.73 193 208
20 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 1174 1270
20 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoe
s
3 8 84 0.37 746 806
Grading
10 Graders 1 8 148 0.41 485 262
10 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 1,174 635
10 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoe
s
2 7 84 0.37 435 235
Building
Construction
220 Cranes 1 7 367 0.29 745 8,860
220 Forklifts 2 7 82 0.2 230 2,730
220 Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 83 986
220 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoe
s
1 6 84 0.37 186 2,218
220 Welders 3 8 46 0.45 497 5,908
Paving
10 Cement and Mortar
Mixers 1 8 10 0.56 45 24
10 Pavers 1 8 81 0.42 272 147
10 Paving Equipment 1 8 89 0.36 256 139
10 Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 219 118
10 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoe
s
1 8 84 0.37 249 134
Architectural
Coating 10 Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48 107 58
CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (gallons of diesel fuel) 24,738 7 Aggregate fuel consumption rate for all equipment was estimated at 18.5 hp -hr/day (from CARB’s 2017 Emissions Factors Tables and fuel consumption rate factors as shown in Table D-21 of the Moyer Guidelines:
(https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf). 243
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA
41 Notes:
1Using Carl Moyer Guidelines Table D-21 Fuel consumption rate factors (bhp-hr/gal) for engines less than 750 hp. (Source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf)
8.1.3 Construction Worker Fuel Estimates
It is assumed that all construction worker trips are from light duty autos (LDA) along area roadways.
With respect to estimated VMT, the construction worker trips would generate an estimated 305,768 VMT. Vehicle fuel efficiencies for construction workers were estimated in the air quality and greenhouse gas analysis using information generated using CARB’s EMFAC model (see Appendix B for details). Table 13 shows that an estimated 9,879 gallons of fuel would be consumed for construction worker trips.
Table 13: Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates Phase
Number of
Days
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Demolition 20 12.5 18.5 4625 30.95 149
Site Preparation 10 10 18.5 1,110 30.95 60
Grading 220 72.2 18.5 293,854 30.95 9,494
Building Construction 10 15 18.5 2,775 30.95 90
Paving 10 14.4 18.5 2,664 30.95 86
Architectural Coating 20 12.5 18.5 4625 30.95 149
Total Construction Worker Fuel Consumption 9,879
Notes:
1Assumptions for the worker trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.28 defaults.
8.1.4 Construction Vendor/Hauling Fuel Estimates
Tables 14 and 15 show the estimated fuel consumption for vendor and hauling during building construction and architectural coating. With respect to estimated VMT, the vendor and hauling trips would generate an estimated 73,144 VMT. For the architectural coatings it is assumed that the contractors would be responsible for bringing coatings and equipment with them in their light duty vehicles.8 Tables 14 and 15 show that an estimated 9,475 gallons of fuel would be consumed for vendor and hauling trips.
<Tables 14 & 15, next page>
8 Vendors delivering construction material or hauling debris from the site during grading would use medium to heavy duty vehicl es with an average fuel consumption of 9.22 mpg for medium heavy -duty trucks and 6.74 mpg for heavy heavy-duty trucks (see Appendix B for details).
244
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA
42 Table 14: Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD Trucks)1 Phase
Number of
Days
Vendor
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Demolition 20 0 10.2 0 9.22 0
Grading 10 0 10.2 0 9.22 0
Building Construction 220 16 10.2 35,904 9.22 3,894
Paving 10 5 10.2 510 9.22 55
Architectural Coating 10 0 10.2 0 9.22 0
Total Vendor Fuel Consumption 3,949
Notes:
1 Assumptions for the vendor trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.28 defaults.
Table 15: Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks)1 Phase
Number of
Days
Hauling
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Demolition 20 24 20 9640 6.74 1,430
Grading 10 138 20 27,600 6.74 4,095
Building Construction 220 0 20 0 6.74 0
Paving 10 0 20 0 6.74 0
Architectural Coating 10 0 20 0 6.74 0
Total Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption 5,525
Notes:
1Assumptions for the hauling trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.28 defaults.
8.1.5 Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures Construction equipment used over the approximately 13-month construction phase would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards and is evidence of related fuel efficiencies. In addition, the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby minimizing unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Furthermore, the project has been designed in compliance with California’s Energy Efficiency Standards and 2022 CALGreen Standards.
Construction of the proposed residential development would require the typical use of energy resources. There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies).
Equipment employed in construction of the project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel.
245
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA
43 8.2 Operational Energy Demand
Energy consumption in support of or related to project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by employee and patron vehicles accessing the project site) and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities).
8.2.1 Transportation Fuel Consumption
The largest source of operational energy use would be vehicle operation of customers. The site is located in an urbanized area just in close proximity to transit stops. Using the CalEEMod output, an average trip for all vehicles was assumed to be 9.74 miles. To show a worst-case analysis, as the proposed project is a residential project, it was assumed that vehicles would operate 365 days per year. Table 16 shows the worst-case estimated annual fuel consumption for all classes of vehicles from autos to heavy-heavy trucks.9 Table 16 shows that an estimated 64,589 gallons of fuel would be consumed per year for the operation of the proposed project.
Table 16: Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption Vehicle Type Vehicle Mix
Number
of
Vehicles
Average
Trip
(miles)1
Daily
VMT
Average
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Total
Gallons
per Day
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Light Auto Automobile 266.8 9.74 2,598 31.82 81.65 29,803 Light Truck Automobile 28.6 9.74 278 27.16 10.24 3,738
Light Truck Automobile 85.0 9.74 827 25.6 32.32 11,798
Medium Truck Automobile 65.7 9.74 640 20.81 30.77 11,231 Light Heavy Truck 2-Axle Truck 13.7 9.74 133 13.81 9.66 3,524 Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs + 2-Axle Truck 3.7 9.74 36 14.18 2.55 932 Medium Heavy Truck 3-Axle Truck 5.6 9.74 55 9.58 5.70 2,081 Heavy Heavy Truck 4-Axle Truck 3.0 9.74 29 7.14 4.06 1,481 Total 472 -- 4,597 -- 176.96 --
Total Annual Fuel Consumption 64,589
Notes:
'1 The trip generation assessment, the project is to generate 472 total new trips. Default CalEEMod vehicle fleet mix utilized. 1Based on the size of the site and relative location, trips were assumed to be local rather than regional.
Trip generation generated by the proposed project are consistent with other similar residential uses of similar scale and configuration as reflected in the traffic analysis from TJW Engineering. That is, the proposed project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Therefore, project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
9 Average fuel economy based on aggregate mileage calculated in EMFAC 2017 for opening year (2023). See Appendix B for EMFAC output. 246
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA
44 8.2.2 Facility Energy Demands (Electricity and Natural Gas) The annual natural gas and electricity demands were provided per the CalEEMod output and are provided in Table 17.
Table 17: Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary1 Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year
Condo/Townhouse 958,662
Total 958,662
Electricity Demand kWh/year
Townhouse High Rise 238,115
Garage 182,074
Parking 13,050
Total 433,239
Notes:
1Taken from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.28 annual output.
As shown in Table 17, the estimated electricity demand for the proposed project is approximately 433,239 kWh per year. In 2022, the residential sector of the County of Ventura consumed approximately 2,037 million kWh of electricity.10 In addition, the estimated natural gas consumption for the proposed project is approximately 958,662 kBTU per year. In 2022, the residential sector of the County of Ventura consumed approximately 103 million therms of gas.11 Therefore, the increase in both electricity and natural gas demand from the proposed project is insignificant compared to the County’s 2022 demand.
8.3 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan Consistency Regarding federal transportation regulations, the project site is located in an already developed area.
Access to/from the project site is from existing roads. These roads are already in place so the project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be proposed pursuant to the ISTEA because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities in the project area.
Regarding the State’s Energy Plan and compliance with Title 24 CCR energy efficiency standards, the applicant is required to comply with the California Green Building Standard Code requirements for energy efficient buildings and appliances as well as utility energy efficiency programs implemented by the SCE.
Regarding the State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, the project would be required to meet or exceed the energy standards established in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 10 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx 11 California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx 247
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA
45 11 (CALGreen). CalGreen Standards require that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting finish materials. 248
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA References
46 9.0 References
The following references were used in the preparing this analysis.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
2009 Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects California Air Resources Board
2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. 2008 Resolution 08-43
2008 Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act
2008 ARB Recommended Interim Risk Management Policy for Inhalation-Based Residential Cancer Risk – Frequently Asked Questions
2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change. 2011 Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document 2013 Revised Emission Factors for Gasoline Marketing Operations at California Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
2014 First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May. 2017 The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target, Draft. October 27, 2017.
2021 Historical Air Quality, Top 4 Summary
City of Simi Valley
2012a City of Simi Valley General Plan. June.
2012b City of Simi Valley Climate Action Plan. June 4.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
2008 CEQA and Climate: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review
2009 CEQA Guideline Sections to be Added or Amended
249
1845 Oak Road Residential Development
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Simi Valley, CA References
47 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
2014 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
2008 Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold.
October 2008.
2009 Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group 14. November 19, 2009.
TJW Engineering
2022 Scoping Agreement for Traffic Impact Analysis. August.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)
2003 Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines
250
Appendix A:
CalEEMod Emission Output
251
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 1 / 75
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
252
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 2 / 75
3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
3.6. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
3.10. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
3.12. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
253
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 3 / 75
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.3.2. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.4.2. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.5.2. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
254
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 4 / 75
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
255
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 5 / 75
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
256
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 6 / 75
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
257
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 7 / 75
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
258
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 8 / 75
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
259
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 9 / 75
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave
Construction Start Date 6/1/2024
Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 19.2
Location 1845 Oak Rd, Simi Valley, CA 93063, USA
County Ventura
City Simi Valley
Air District Ventura County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3519
EDFZ 8
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.28
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Condo/Townhouse
High Rise
70.0 Dwelling Unit 1.09 104,020 0.00 — 211 —
260
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 10 / 75
Enclosed Parking
Structure
130 Space 1.17 52,000 0.00 — — —
Parking Lot 38.0 Space 0.34 0.00 10,000 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers
Construction C-13 Use Low-VOC Paints for Construction
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 67.7 29.1 19.1 0.09 0.86 5.40 6.27 0.80 2.07 2.87 — 12,307 12,307 0.33 1.58 22.3 12,807 Mit. 25.0 24.4 18.0 0.09 0.69 5.40 5.98 0.64 2.07 2.60 — 12,307 12,307 0.33 1.58 22.3 12,807 %
Reduced
63% 16% 6% — 20% — 5% 21% — 10% — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.65 12.3 16.6 0.03 0.46 1.08 1.55 0.43 0.26 0.69 — 3,644 3,644 0.15 0.13 0.15 3,686 Mit. 1.65 12.3 16.6 0.03 0.46 1.08 1.55 0.43 0.26 0.69 — 3,644 3,644 0.15 0.13 0.15 3,686 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
261
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 11 / 75
Unmit. 2.31 5.93 7.01 0.01 0.22 0.65 0.87 0.20 0.17 0.37 — 1,798 1,798 0.07 0.10 1.19 1,831 Mit. 1.13 5.80 6.98 0.01 0.21 0.65 0.86 0.19 0.17 0.36 — 1,798 1,798 0.07 0.10 1.19 1,831 %
Reduced
51% 2% < 0.5% — 4% — 1% 4% — 2% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.42 1.08 1.28 < 0.005 0.04 0.12 0.16 0.04 0.03 0.07 — 298 298 0.01 0.02 0.20 303 Mit. 0.21 1.06 1.27 < 0.005 0.04 0.12 0.16 0.04 0.03 0.07 — 298 298 0.01 0.02 0.20 303 %
Reduced
51% 2% < 0.5% — 4% — 1% 4% — 2% — — — — — — —
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.91 29.1 19.1 0.09 0.86 5.40 6.27 0.80 2.07 2.87 — 12,307 12,307 0.33 1.58 22.3 12,807 2025 67.7 11.5 16.6 0.03 0.41 1.08 1.49 0.38 0.26 0.64 — 3,660 3,660 0.14 0.13 5.29 3,707 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.65 12.3 16.6 0.03 0.46 1.08 1.55 0.43 0.26 0.69 — 3,644 3,644 0.15 0.13 0.15 3,686 2025 1.55 11.6 16.2 0.03 0.41 1.08 1.49 0.38 0.26 0.64 — 3,618 3,618 0.15 0.13 0.14 3,660 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.70 5.93 7.01 0.01 0.22 0.65 0.87 0.20 0.17 0.37 — 1,798 1,798 0.07 0.10 1.19 1,831 2025 2.31 3.34 4.67 0.01 0.12 0.30 0.42 0.11 0.07 0.18 — 1,031 1,031 0.04 0.04 0.64 1,044 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.13 1.08 1.28 < 0.005 0.04 0.12 0.16 0.04 0.03 0.07 — 298 298 0.01 0.02 0.20 303 2025 0.42 0.61 0.85 < 0.005 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.03 — 171 171 0.01 0.01 0.11 173 262
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 12 / 75
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.71 24.4 18.0 0.09 0.69 5.40 5.98 0.64 2.07 2.60 — 12,307 12,307 0.33 1.58 22.3 12,807 2025 25.0 11.5 16.6 0.03 0.41 1.08 1.49 0.38 0.26 0.64 — 3,660 3,660 0.14 0.13 5.29 3,707 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.65 12.3 16.6 0.03 0.46 1.08 1.55 0.43 0.26 0.69 — 3,644 3,644 0.15 0.13 0.15 3,686 2025 1.55 11.6 16.2 0.03 0.41 1.08 1.49 0.38 0.26 0.64 — 3,618 3,618 0.15 0.13 0.14 3,660 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.66 5.80 6.98 0.01 0.21 0.65 0.86 0.19 0.17 0.36 — 1,798 1,798 0.07 0.10 1.19 1,831 2025 1.13 3.34 4.67 0.01 0.12 0.30 0.42 0.11 0.07 0.18 — 1,031 1,031 0.04 0.04 0.64 1,044 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.12 1.06 1.27 < 0.005 0.04 0.12 0.16 0.04 0.03 0.07 — 298 298 0.01 0.02 0.20 303 2025 0.21 0.61 0.85 < 0.005 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.03 — 171 171 0.01 0.01 0.11 173
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.27 8.44 28.8 0.05 0.34 3.25 3.59 0.34 0.82 1.16 33.0 5,620 5,653 3.58 0.18 15.4 5,812 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
263
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 13 / 75
Unmit. 6.50 8.59 22.4 0.05 0.34 3.25 3.59 0.33 0.82 1.16 33.0 5,477 5,510 3.60 0.19 1.12 5,658 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.89 2.20 18.1 0.04 0.05 3.21 3.26 0.05 0.81 0.86 33.0 4,505 4,538 3.55 0.18 7.07 4,688 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.89 0.40 3.30 0.01 0.01 0.59 0.60 0.01 0.15 0.16 5.47 746 751 0.59 0.03 1.17 776
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.14 1.72 15.3 0.04 0.03 3.25 3.28 0.02 0.82 0.85 — 3,627 3,627 0.16 0.15 14.6 3,691 Area 3.14 0.06 6.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 19.9 19.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.0 Energy 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 939 939 0.07 0.01 — 942 Water — — — — — — — — — — 5.08 27.3 32.4 0.52 0.01 — 49.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 27.9 0.00 27.9 2.79 0.00 — 97.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 0.74
Stationar
y
1.97 6.42 7.15 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 1,007 1,007 0.04 0.01 0.00 1,011 Total 7.27 8.44 28.8 0.05 0.34 3.25 3.59 0.34 0.82 1.16 33.0 5,620 5,653 3.58 0.18 15.4 5,812 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.10 1.92 15.2 0.03 0.03 3.25 3.28 0.02 0.82 0.85 — 3,503 3,503 0.18 0.17 0.38 3,557 Area 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 939 939 0.07 0.01 — 942 Water — — — — — — — — — — 5.08 27.3 32.4 0.52 0.01 — 49.2 264
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 14 / 75
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 27.9 0.00 27.9 2.79 0.00 — 97.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 0.74
Stationar
y
1.97 6.42 7.15 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 1,007 1,007 0.04 0.01 0.00 1,011 Total 6.50 8.59 22.4 0.05 0.34 3.25 3.59 0.33 0.82 1.16 33.0 5,477 5,510 3.60 0.19 1.12 5,658 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.09 1.88 14.9 0.03 0.03 3.21 3.24 0.02 0.81 0.84 — 3,522 3,522 0.17 0.16 6.32 3,581 Area 2.78 0.03 3.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 9.82 9.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.86 Energy 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 939 939 0.07 0.01 — 942 Water — — — — — — — — — — 5.08 27.3 32.4 0.52 0.01 — 49.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 27.9 0.00 27.9 2.79 0.00 — 97.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 0.74
Stationar
y
0.01 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 6.90 6.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 6.92 Total 4.89 2.20 18.1 0.04 0.05 3.21 3.26 0.05 0.81 0.86 33.0 4,505 4,538 3.55 0.18 7.07 4,688 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.38 0.34 2.72 0.01 < 0.005 0.59 0.59 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 — 583 583 0.03 0.03 1.05 593 Area 0.51 0.01 0.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.63 1.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.63 Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 155 155 0.01 < 0.005 — 156 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.84 4.52 5.37 0.09 < 0.005 — 8.15 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 4.63 0.00 4.63 0.46 0.00 — 16.2 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.12
Stationar
y
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 1.15 Total 0.89 0.40 3.30 0.01 0.01 0.59 0.60 0.01 0.15 0.16 5.47 746 751 0.59 0.03 1.17 776
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 265
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 15 / 75
Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.14 1.72 15.3 0.04 0.03 3.25 3.28 0.02 0.82 0.85 — 3,627 3,627 0.16 0.15 14.6 3,691 Area 3.14 0.06 6.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 19.9 19.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.0 Energy 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 939 939 0.07 0.01 — 942 Water — — — — — — — — — — 5.08 27.3 32.4 0.52 0.01 — 49.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 27.9 0.00 27.9 2.79 0.00 — 97.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 0.74
Stationar
y
1.97 6.42 7.15 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 1,007 1,007 0.04 0.01 0.00 1,011 Total 7.27 8.44 28.8 0.05 0.34 3.25 3.59 0.34 0.82 1.16 33.0 5,620 5,653 3.58 0.18 15.4 5,812 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.10 1.92 15.2 0.03 0.03 3.25 3.28 0.02 0.82 0.85 — 3,503 3,503 0.18 0.17 0.38 3,557 Area 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 939 939 0.07 0.01 — 942 Water — — — — — — — — — — 5.08 27.3 32.4 0.52 0.01 — 49.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 27.9 0.00 27.9 2.79 0.00 — 97.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 0.74
Stationar
y
1.97 6.42 7.15 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 1,007 1,007 0.04 0.01 0.00 1,011 Total 6.50 8.59 22.4 0.05 0.34 3.25 3.59 0.33 0.82 1.16 33.0 5,477 5,510 3.60 0.19 1.12 5,658 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.09 1.88 14.9 0.03 0.03 3.21 3.24 0.02 0.81 0.84 — 3,522 3,522 0.17 0.16 6.32 3,581 Area 2.78 0.03 3.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 9.82 9.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.86 Energy 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 939 939 0.07 0.01 — 942 Water — — — — — — — — — — 5.08 27.3 32.4 0.52 0.01 — 49.2 266
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 16 / 75
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 27.9 0.00 27.9 2.79 0.00 — 97.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 0.74
Stationar
y
0.01 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 6.90 6.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 6.92 Total 4.89 2.20 18.1 0.04 0.05 3.21 3.26 0.05 0.81 0.86 33.0 4,505 4,538 3.55 0.18 7.07 4,688 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.38 0.34 2.72 0.01 < 0.005 0.59 0.59 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 — 583 583 0.03 0.03 1.05 593 Area 0.51 0.01 0.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.63 1.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.63 Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 155 155 0.01 < 0.005 — 156 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.84 4.52 5.37 0.09 < 0.005 — 8.15 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 4.63 0.00 4.63 0.46 0.00 — 16.2 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.12
Stationar
y
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 1.15 Total 0.89 0.40 3.30 0.01 0.01 0.59 0.60 0.01 0.15 0.16 5.47 746 751 0.59 0.03 1.17 776
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.61 15.6 16.0 0.02 0.67 — 0.67 0.62 — 0.62 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,502 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 2.09 2.09 — 0.32 0.32 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 267
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 17 / 75
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.09 0.85 0.88 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 171 171 0.01 0.01 0.74 173 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 2.32 0.54 0.01 0.02 0.44 0.46 0.02 0.12 0.14 — 1,707 1,707 0.04 0.27 3.81 1,793 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.99 8.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.12 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.13 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 93.5 93.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 98.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
268
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 18 / 75
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.49 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.5 15.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 16.2
3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.61 15.6 16.0 0.02 0.67 — 0.67 0.62 — 0.62 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,502 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 2.09 2.09 — 0.32 0.32 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.09 0.85 0.88 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
269
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 19 / 75
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 171 171 0.01 0.01 0.74 173 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 2.32 0.54 0.01 0.02 0.44 0.46 0.02 0.12 0.14 — 1,707 1,707 0.04 0.27 3.81 1,793 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.99 8.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.12 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.13 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 93.5 93.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 98.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.49 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.5 15.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 16.2
3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.65 15.9 15.4 0.02 0.74 — 0.74 0.68 — 0.68 — 2,454 2,454 0.10 0.02 — 2,462 270
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 20 / 75
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.78 2.78 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.44 0.42 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 67.2 67.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 67.5 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 136 136 0.01 < 0.005 0.59 139 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.21 13.2 3.05 0.06 0.12 2.49 2.61 0.12 0.70 0.82 — 9,717 9,717 0.22 1.55 21.7 10,206 271
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 21 / 75
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.60 3.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.65 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.38 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 266 266 0.01 0.04 0.26 279 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.60 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.1 44.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 46.2
3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.42 11.1 14.2 0.02 0.46 — 0.46 0.41 — 0.41 — 2,454 2,454 0.10 0.02 — 2,462 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.78 2.78 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
272
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 22 / 75
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.30 0.39 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 67.2 67.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 67.5 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 136 136 0.01 < 0.005 0.59 139 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.21 13.2 3.05 0.06 0.12 2.49 2.61 0.12 0.70 0.82 — 9,717 9,717 0.22 1.55 21.7 10,206 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.60 3.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.65 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.38 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 266 266 0.01 0.04 0.26 279 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.60 273
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 23 / 75
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.1 44.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 46.2
3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.32 11.2 11.9 0.02 0.46 — 0.46 0.42 — 0.42 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,209 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.32 11.2 11.9 0.02 0.46 — 0.46 0.42 — 0.42 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,209 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.44 3.76 4.00 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 737 737 0.03 0.01 — 739 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.08 0.69 0.73 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 122 122 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 122 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
274
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 24 / 75
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.35 0.35 4.87 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 985 985 0.04 0.04 4.26 1,001 Vendor 0.01 0.65 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 501 501 0.01 0.07 1.40 525 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.42 4.41 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 942 942 0.05 0.04 0.11 954 Vendor 0.01 0.67 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 502 502 0.01 0.07 0.04 524 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.14 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 317 317 0.02 0.01 0.61 322 Vendor < 0.005 0.23 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 168 168 < 0.005 0.03 0.20 176 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.03 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 52.6 52.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 53.3 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 29.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.6. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.32 11.2 11.9 0.02 0.46 — 0.46 0.42 — 0.42 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,209 275
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 25 / 75
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.32 11.2 11.9 0.02 0.46 — 0.46 0.42 — 0.42 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,209 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.44 3.76 4.00 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 737 737 0.03 0.01 — 739 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.08 0.69 0.73 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 122 122 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 122 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.35 0.35 4.87 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 985 985 0.04 0.04 4.26 1,001 Vendor 0.01 0.65 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 501 501 0.01 0.07 1.40 525 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.42 4.41 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 942 942 0.05 0.04 0.11 954 Vendor 0.01 0.67 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 502 502 0.01 0.07 0.04 524 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 276
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 26 / 75
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker 0.10 0.14 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 317 317 0.02 0.01 0.61 322 Vendor < 0.005 0.23 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 168 168 < 0.005 0.03 0.20 176 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.03 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 52.6 52.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 53.3 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 29.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.24 10.6 11.9 0.02 0.40 — 0.40 0.37 — 0.37 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,209 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.24 10.6 11.9 0.02 0.40 — 0.40 0.37 — 0.37 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,209 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.33 2.86 3.20 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 594 594 0.02 < 0.005 — 597 277
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 27 / 75
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.52 0.58 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 98.4 98.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 98.8 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.31 0.32 4.54 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 966 966 0.04 0.04 3.90 981 Vendor 0.01 0.62 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 493 493 0.01 0.07 1.39 517 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.30 0.39 4.12 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 923 923 0.05 0.04 0.10 935 Vendor 0.01 0.64 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 494 494 0.01 0.07 0.04 516 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.10 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 251 251 0.01 0.01 0.45 255 Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 133 133 < 0.005 0.02 0.16 139 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 41.6 41.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 42.2 Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.1 22.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 23.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
278
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 28 / 75
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.24 10.6 11.9 0.02 0.40 — 0.40 0.37 — 0.37 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,209 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.24 10.6 11.9 0.02 0.40 — 0.40 0.37 — 0.37 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,209 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.33 2.86 3.20 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 594 594 0.02 < 0.005 — 597 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.52 0.58 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 98.4 98.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 98.8 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.31 0.32 4.54 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 966 966 0.04 0.04 3.90 981 Vendor 0.01 0.62 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 493 493 0.01 0.07 1.39 517 279
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 29 / 75
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.30 0.39 4.12 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 923 923 0.05 0.04 0.10 935 Vendor 0.01 0.64 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 494 494 0.01 0.07 0.04 516 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.10 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 251 251 0.01 0.01 0.45 255 Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 133 133 < 0.005 0.02 0.16 139 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 41.6 41.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 42.2 Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.1 22.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 23.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.70 6.13 8.21 0.01 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 — 1,244 1,244 0.05 0.01 — 1,248 Paving 0.40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 280
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 30 / 75
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.17 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.1 34.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.2 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.64 5.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.66 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 201 201 0.01 0.01 0.81 204 Vendor < 0.005 0.19 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 154 154 < 0.005 0.02 0.44 162 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.29 5.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.37 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.22 4.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.42 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.89 281
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 31 / 75
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.70 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.73 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.10. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.70 6.13 8.21 0.01 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 — 1,244 1,244 0.05 0.01 — 1,248 Paving 0.40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.17 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.1 34.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.2 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.64 5.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.66 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
282
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 32 / 75
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 201 201 0.01 0.01 0.81 204 Vendor < 0.005 0.19 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 154 154 < 0.005 0.02 0.44 162 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.29 5.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.37 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.22 4.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.42 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.89 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.70 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.73 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
67.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
283
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 33 / 75
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.66 3.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.67 Architect
ural
Coatings
1.85 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 Architect
ural
Coatings
0.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 193 193 0.01 0.01 0.78 196 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.09 5.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.17 284
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 34 / 75
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.84 0.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.86 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.12. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
24.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.66 3.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.67 Architect
ural
Coatings
0.68 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 285
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 35 / 75
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 Architect
ural
Coatings
0.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 193 193 0.01 0.01 0.78 196 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.09 5.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.17 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.84 0.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.86 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
286
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 36 / 75
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.
4.1.2. Mitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.5. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 347 347 0.02 < 0.005 — 348
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 265 265 0.02 < 0.005 — 266
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 19.0 19.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 631 631 0.04 < 0.005 — 634
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 347 347 0.02 < 0.005 — 348
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 265 265 0.02 < 0.005 — 266
287
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 37 / 75
Parking — — — — — — — — — — — 19.0 19.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.1 Lot
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 631 631 0.04 < 0.005 — 634
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.7
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 43.9 43.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.1
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.15 3.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.16
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 105 105 0.01 < 0.005 — 105
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 347 347 0.02 < 0.005 — 348
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 265 265 0.02 < 0.005 — 266
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 19.0 19.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 631 631 0.04 < 0.005 — 634
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
288
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 38 / 75
Condo/T
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 347 347 0.02 < 0.005 — 348
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 265 265 0.02 < 0.005 — 266
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 19.0 19.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 631 631 0.04 < 0.005 — 634
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.7
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 43.9 43.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.1
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.15 3.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.16
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 105 105 0.01 < 0.005 — 105
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 307 307 0.03 < 0.005 — 308 Enclosed
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 289
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 39 / 75
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 307 307 0.03 < 0.005 — 308 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 307 307 0.03 < 0.005 — 308 Enclosed
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 307 307 0.03 < 0.005 — 308 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
< 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 50.9 50.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.0 Enclosed
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 50.9 50.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.0
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
290
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 40 / 75
Condo/T
High
Rise
0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 307 307 0.03 < 0.005 — 308 Enclosed
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 307 307 0.03 < 0.005 — 308 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 307 307 0.03 < 0.005 — 308 Enclosed
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 307 307 0.03 < 0.005 — 308 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
< 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 50.9 50.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.0 Enclosed
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 50.9 50.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.0
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
291
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 41 / 75
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
2.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.73 0.06 6.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 19.9 19.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.0 Total 3.14 0.06 6.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 19.9 19.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
2.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
0.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
292
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 42 / 75
Architect
Coatings
0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.07 0.01 0.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.63 1.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.63 Total 0.51 0.01 0.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.63 1.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.63
4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
2.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.73 0.06 6.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 19.9 19.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.0 Total 3.14 0.06 6.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 19.9 19.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
2.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
293
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 43 / 75
Architect 0.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coatings
Total 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
0.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.07 0.01 0.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.63 1.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.63 Total 0.51 0.01 0.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.63 1.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.63
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 5.08 26.3 31.4 0.52 0.01 — 48.2
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
294
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 44 / 75
Parking — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.00 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.00 Lot
Total — — — — — — — — — — 5.08 27.3 32.4 0.52 0.01 — 49.2 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 5.08 26.3 31.4 0.52 0.01 — 48.2
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.00 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.00 Total — — — — — — — — — — 5.08 27.3 32.4 0.52 0.01 — 49.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 0.84 4.36 5.20 0.09 < 0.005 — 7.99
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.17 Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.84 4.52 5.37 0.09 < 0.005 — 8.15
4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
295
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 45 / 75
Condo/T
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 5.08 26.3 31.4 0.52 0.01 — 48.2
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.00 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.00 Total — — — — — — — — — — 5.08 27.3 32.4 0.52 0.01 — 49.2 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 5.08 26.3 31.4 0.52 0.01 — 48.2
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.00 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.00 Total — — — — — — — — — — 5.08 27.3 32.4 0.52 0.01 — 49.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 0.84 4.36 5.20 0.09 < 0.005 — 7.99
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.17 Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.84 4.52 5.37 0.09 < 0.005 — 8.15
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
296
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 46 / 75
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 27.9 0.00 27.9 2.79 0.00 — 97.7
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 27.9 0.00 27.9 2.79 0.00 — 97.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 27.9 0.00 27.9 2.79 0.00 — 97.7
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 27.9 0.00 27.9 2.79 0.00 — 97.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 4.63 0.00 4.63 0.46 0.00 — 16.2
297
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 47 / 75
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 4.63 0.00 4.63 0.46 0.00 — 16.2
4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 27.9 0.00 27.9 2.79 0.00 — 97.7
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 27.9 0.00 27.9 2.79 0.00 — 97.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 27.9 0.00 27.9 2.79 0.00 — 97.7
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
298
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 48 / 75
Total — — — — — — — — — — 27.9 0.00 27.9 2.79 0.00 — 97.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 4.63 0.00 4.63 0.46 0.00 — 16.2
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 4.63 0.00 4.63 0.46 0.00 — 16.2
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 0.74
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 0.74
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 0.74
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 0.74
299
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 49 / 75
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.12
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.12
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 0.74
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 0.74
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 0.74
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 0.74
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.12
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.12
300
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 50 / 75
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
301
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 51 / 75
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emergen
cy
Generat
or
1.97 6.42 7.15 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 1,007 1,007 0.04 0.01 0.00 1,011 Total 1.97 6.42 7.15 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 1,007 1,007 0.04 0.01 0.00 1,011 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emergen
cy
Generat
or
1.97 6.42 7.15 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 1,007 1,007 0.04 0.01 0.00 1,011 Total 1.97 6.42 7.15 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 1,007 1,007 0.04 0.01 0.00 1,011 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emergen
cy
Generat
or
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 1.15 Total < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 1.15
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 302
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 52 / 75
Equipme
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emergen
cy
Generat
or
1.97 6.42 7.15 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 1,007 1,007 0.04 0.01 0.00 1,011 Total 1.97 6.42 7.15 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 1,007 1,007 0.04 0.01 0.00 1,011 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emergen
cy
Generat
or
1.97 6.42 7.15 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 1,007 1,007 0.04 0.01 0.00 1,011 Total 1.97 6.42 7.15 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 1,007 1,007 0.04 0.01 0.00 1,011 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emergen
cy
Generat
or
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 1.15 Total < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 1.15
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
303
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 53 / 75
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 304
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 54 / 75
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
305
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 55 / 75
Avoided—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Sequest
ered
—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Remove d—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Avoided—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Sequest
ered
—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Remove d—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
——————————————————
Annual—————————————————
Avoided—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Sequest
ered
—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Remove d
—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
——————————————————
306
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 56 / 75
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated 307
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 57 / 75
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
308
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 58 / 75
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 6/1/2024 6/29/2024 5.00 20.0 —
Grading Grading 7/1/2024 7/13/2024 5.00 10.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 7/14/2024 5/18/2025 5.00 220 — Paving Paving 5/19/2025 6/2/2025 5.00 10.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/3/2025 6/17/2025 5.00 10.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 82.0 0.20 309
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 59 / 75
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 3 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 310
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 60 / 75
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 hoes
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 24.1 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 138 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 72.2 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 16.0 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
311
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 61 / 75
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 5.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 14.4 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 24.1 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 138 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 72.2 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 16.0 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
312
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 62 / 75
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 5.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 14.4 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 210,641 70,214 2,293 255 3,952
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building
Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 42,000 —
Grading 11,000 — 6.00 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.51
313
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 63 / 75
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Condo/Townhouse High Rise — 0%
Enclosed Parking Structure 1.17 100%
Parking Lot 0.34 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 472 472 472 172,280 4,599 4,599 4,599 1,678,539
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 472 472 472 172,280 4,599 4,599 4,599 1,678,539 314
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 64 / 75
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse High Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 70
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse High Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 70
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
315
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 65 / 75
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
210640.5 70,214 2,293 255 3,952
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse High Rise 238,115 532 0.0330 0.0040 958,662 Enclosed Parking Structure 182,074 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Parking Lot 13,050 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.11.2. Mitigated
316
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 66 / 75
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse High Rise 238,115 532 0.0330 0.0040 958,662 Enclosed Parking Structure 182,074 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Parking Lot 13,050 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse High Rise 2,653,240 0.00
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 129,276
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse High Rise 2,653,240 0.00
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 129,276
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse High Rise 51.8 —
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
317
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 67 / 75
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse High Rise 51.8 —
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse
High Rise
Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse
High Rise
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse
High Rise
Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse
High Rise
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 318
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 68 / 75
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor Emergency Generator Diesel 1.00 24.0 60.0 50.0 0.73
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
319
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 69 / 75
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 17.0 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 6.65 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 31.3 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 320
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 70 / 75
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
321
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 71 / 75
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 76.9
AQ-PM 39.1
AQ-DPM 19.1
Drinking Water 50.5
Lead Risk Housing 34.3
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 22.9
Traffic 33.6
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 20.3
Impaired Water Bodies 87.0
Solid Waste 0.00
322
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 72 / 75
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 54.5
Cardio-vascular 61.6
Low Birth Weights 21.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 39.5
Housing 87.2
Linguistic 7.38
Poverty 26.7
Unemployment 62.4
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 55.87065315
Employed 69.52393173
Median HI 46.58026434
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 45.32272552
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 74.87488772
Transportation —
Auto Access 22.57153856
Active commuting 21.26267163
Social —
2-parent households 14.62851277
Voting 64.09598358
323
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 73 / 75
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 43.28243295
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 40.93417169
Supermarket access 85.75644809
Tree canopy 45.79751059
Housing —
Homeownership 39.57397665
Housing habitability 14.70550494
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 43.37225715 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 26.31849095
Uncrowded housing 40.60053895
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 58.50121904
Arthritis 20.9
Asthma ER Admissions 56.6
High Blood Pressure 22.4
Cancer (excluding skin) 17.3
Asthma 43.1
Coronary Heart Disease 23.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 27.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 61.5
Life Expectancy at Birth 34.7
Cognitively Disabled 50.3
Physically Disabled 12.2
Heart Attack ER Admissions 15.8
Mental Health Not Good 50.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 45.1
324
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 74 / 75
Obesity 57.9
Pedestrian Injuries 56.8
Physical Health Not Good 48.3
Stroke 29.9
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 45.1
Current Smoker 50.3
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 49.6
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 15.2
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 69.7
Elderly 16.5
English Speaking 88.5
Foreign-born 40.4
Outdoor Workers 81.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 50.1
Traffic Density 36.4
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 48.8
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 74.0
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 31.0 325
Simi Valley Oak Rd & Los Angeles Ave Detailed Report, 9/4/2024 75 / 75
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 51.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Per site plan
Construction: Construction Phases No site preparation required Construction: Architectural Coatings —
326
Appendix B:
EMFAC 2017 Output
327
Source: EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Air DistrictRegion: South Coast AQMDCalendar Year: 2023Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel ConsumptionRegion Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population VMT Trips Fuel Consumption Fuel Consumption Total Fuel Consumption VMT Total VMT Miles Per Gallon Vehicle ClassSouth Coast AQMD2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 75.10442936 8265.097 1502.689 1.936286145 1936.286145 1913466.474 8265.097 13656273.03 7.14 HHDSouth Coast AQMD2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 109818.6753 13648008 1133618 1911.530188 1911530.188 13648008South Coast AQMD2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 6635002.295 2.53E+08 31352477 7971.24403 7971244.03 8020635.698 2.53E+08 255180358.3 31.82 LDASouth Coast AQMD2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 62492.97958 2469816 297086.6 49.3916685 49391.6685 2469816South Coast AQMD2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 150700.3971 6237106 751566 0 0 6237106South Coast AQMD2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 758467.6481 27812996 3504563 1023.913006 1023913.006 1024279.466 27812996 27821405.09 27.16 LDT1South Coast AQMD2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 360.7799144 8408.618 1256.88 0.366459477 366.4594769 8408.618South Coast AQMD2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 7122.93373 303507.5 35798.19 0 0 303507.5South Coast AQMD2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2285150.139 85272416 10723315 3338.798312 3338798.312 3356536.438 85272416 85922778.34 25.60 LDT2South Coast AQMD2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 15594.68309 650362.8 76635.83 17.73812611 17738.12611 650362.8South Coast AQMD2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 28809.63735 917592.8 145405.4 0 0 917592.8South Coast AQMD2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 174910.3847 6216643 2605904 583.3851736 583385.1736 811563.1022 6216643 11211395.79 13.81 LHDT1South Coast AQMD2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 125545.0822 4994753 1579199 228.1779285 228177.9285 4994753South Coast AQMD2023 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 30102.75324 1034569 448486.2 111.5753864 111575.3864 209423.5025 1034569 2969599.008 14.18 LHDT2South Coast AQMD2023 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 50003.13116 1935030 628976.5 97.84811618 97848.11618 1935030South Coast AQMD2023 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 305044.5141 2104624 610089 57.849018 57849.018 57849.018 2104624 2104623.657 36.38 MCYSouth Coast AQMD2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1589862.703 55684188 7354860 2693.883526 2693883.526 2744536.341 55684188 57109879.73 20.81 MDVSouth Coast AQMD2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 36128.1019 1425691 176566.9 50.65281491 50652.81491 1425691South Coast AQMD2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 16376.67653 537591.7 83475.95 0 0 537591.7South Coast AQMD2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 34679.50542 330042.9 3469.338 63.26295123 63262.95123 74893.26955 330042.9 454344.9436 6.07 MHSouth Coast AQMD2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 13122.69387 124302 1312.269 11.63031832 11630.31832 124302South Coast AQMD2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 25624.3151 1363694 512691.3 265.2060557 265206.0557 989975.6425 1363694 9484317.768 9.58 MHDTSouth Coast AQMD2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 122124.488 8120623 1221858 724.7695868 724769.5868 8120623South Coast AQMD2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 5955.291639 245774 119153.5 48.07750689 48077.50689 86265.88761 245774 579743.8353 6.72 OBUSSouth Coast AQMD2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4286.940093 333969.8 41558.29 38.18838072 38188.38072 333969.8South Coast AQMD2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2783.643068 112189.6 11134.57 12.19474692 12194.74692 39638.85935 112189.6 323043.5203 8.15 SBUSSouth Coast AQMD2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6671.825716 210853.9 76991.94 27.44411242 27444.11242 210853.9South Coast AQMD2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 957.7686184 89782.63 3831.074 17.62416327 17624.16327 17863.66378 89782.63 91199.2533 5.11 UBUSSouth Coast AQMD2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 13.00046095 1416.622 52.00184 0.239500509 239.5005093 1416.622South Coast AQMD2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 16.11693886 1320.163 64.46776 0 1320.163 328
June 9, 2023
Prepared by:
TJW ENGINEERING, INC.
9841 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
949.878.3509 | www.tjwengineering.com
1845 Oak Road
Traffic Impact Analysis
City of Simi Valley, California
329
9841 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 | Irvine, California 92618 | 949.878.3509 |www.tjwengineering.com June 9, 2023
Mr. Eric Miller
CITY VENTURES
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92612
Subject: Traffic Impact Analysis – 1845 Oak Road, City of Simi Valley Dear Mr. Miller:
TJW ENGINEERING, INC. (TJW) is pleased to present you with this traffic impact analysis for the proposed 1845 Oak Road project located at 1845 Oak Road in the City of Simi Valley.
This traffic study has been prepared to meet the traffic study requirements for the City of Simi Valley and assesses the forecast traffic operations associated with the proposed project and its impact on the local street network. This report is being submitted to you for review and forwarding to the City of Simi Valley.
Please contact us at (949) 878-3509 if you have any questions regarding this analysis.
Sincerely,
Thomas Wheat, PE, TE David Chew, PTP
President Transportation Planner
Registered Civil Engineer #69467
Registered Traffic Engineer #2565
Daniel Flores, EIT
Project Engineer
330
1845 Oak Road
Traffic Impact Analysis
City of Simi Valley, California
June 9, 2023
Prepared for:
Mr. Eric Miller
CITY VENTURES
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 120
Irvine, CA 92612
Prepared by:
Thomas Wheat, PE, TE
David Chew, PTP
Daniel Flores, EIT
TJW ENGINEERING, INC.
9841 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
949.878.3509 | www.tjwengineering.com
331
CVR-22-002
1 Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 4
1.1 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS RESULTS ........................................................................ 4
1.2 ON-SITE ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................... 5
2.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.2 STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................................................ 7
2.3 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 8
2.3.1 Intersection Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................. 8
2.4 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA .................................................................................................................. 10
2.4.1 City of Simi Valley ..................................................................................................................... 10
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 14
3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK/STUDY AREA CONDITIONS ....................................................... 14
3.2 CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT ........................................................ 14
3.3 EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ............................................................................... 14
3.4 EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES ................................................................................................ 14
3.5 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................................................ 15
3.6 EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ............................................... 15
4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................................................................. 18
4.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................... 18
4.2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION .............................................................................................................. 18
4.3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................................................ 18
4.4 SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 19
5.0 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS (EP) .......................................................................................... 22
5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................. 22
5.2 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................................................................................... 22
5.3 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ............................................ 22
6.0 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (CNP) ............................................ 24
6.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................. 24
6.2 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ....................................................... 24
6.3 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ............... 24
7.0 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (CWP) ................................................... 27
7.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................. 27 332
CVR-22-002
2 7.2 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................... 27
7.3 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ......... 27
333
CVR-22-002
3 List of Tables
Table 1 ICU – Volume-to-Capacity Ratio – Signalized Intersection ................................................................... 8 Table 2 HCM – LOS & Delay Ranges – Unsignalized Intersections .................................................................... 9 Table 3 City of Simi Valley Thresholds of Significance ..................................................................................... 10 Table 4 Roadway Characteristics within Study Area........................................................................................ 14 Table 5 Intersection Analysis – Existing Conditions ......................................................................................... 15 Table 6 Proposed Project Trip Generation ...................................................................................................... 18 Table 7 Intersection Analysis – Existing Plus Project (EP) Conditions .............................................................. 22 Table 8 Intersection Analysis – Cumulative Traffic Without Project (CNP) Conditions ................................... 25 Table 9 Intersection Analysis – Cumulative Traffic Plus Project Traffic (CWP) Conditions ............................. 28 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 11 Exhibit 2: Proposed Project Site Plan ............................................................................................................... 12 Exhibit 3: Proposed TIA Study Area ................................................................................................................. 13 Exhibit 4: Lane Geometry and Intersection Controls....................................................................................... 16 Exhibit 5: Existing AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes ........................................................................................ 17 Exhibit 6: Project Trip Distribution and Trip Assignments at Study Intersections ........................................... 20 Exhibit 7: Sight Distance Analysis .................................................................................................................... 21 Exhibit 8: Existing Plus Project AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes .................................................................... 23 Exhibit 9: Cumulative Traffic without Project AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes ............................................. 26 Exhibit 10: Cumulative Traffic Plus Project AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................. 29 Appendices
Appendix A: Scoping Agreement and City Docs
Appendix B: Existing Traffic Counts and Model Volumes
Appendix C: HCM Analysis Sheets
334
CVR-22-002
4 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This traffic impact analysis (TIA) analyzes the projected traffic operations associated with the proposed 1845 Oak Road project located at 1845 Oak Road in the City of Simi Valley. The purpose of this TIA is to evaluate potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from development of the proposed project, and to recommend improvements to achieve acceptable operations, if applicable. This analysis has been prepared in coordination with the City of Simi Valley via a scoping agreement (See Appendix A) and is pursuant to applicable City of Simi Valley traffic impact analysis guidelines.
The proposed project consists of 70 multi-family residential dwelling units. Site access is planned via two fullaccess driveways on E Los Angeles Avenue. The site is currently zoned as CPD/RM and classified as CG/MD in the City of Simi Valley General Plan Land Use Plan. The project site is currently occupied by a preschool.
The proposed project is anticipated to be built and generating trips in 2024. Future Year (2030) volumes were provided in the Simi Valley General Plan EIR.
The proposed project is projected to generate 472 daily trips, 28 AM peak hour trips, and 36 PM peak hour trips.
The following three (3) intersections in the vicinity of the project site have been included in the intersection level of service (LOS) analysis:
1. Yosemite Avenue/E Los Angeles Avenue;
2. Oak Road/E Los Angeles Avenue; and
3. Shunk Road/E Los Angeles Avenue.
The study intersections are analyzed for the following study scenarios:
• Existing Traffic Conditions (Existing);
• Existing Traffic plus Projects Conditions (Existing + Project); • Cumulative Traffic without Project Traffic Conditions (Existing + Model Data); and • Cumulative Traffic plus Project Traffic Conditions (Existing + Model Data + Project).
1.1 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS RESULTS
Table ES-1 summarizes the results of the intersection level of service analysis based on the City of Simi Valley thresholds of significance for analyzing transportation deficiencies. 335
CVR-22-002
5 Table ES-1
Summary of Transportation Deficiencies at Study Intersections Intersection Existing Plus Project Future Year Plus Project 1 Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue No Deficiencies No Deficiencies 2 Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue No Deficiencies Deficient 3 Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue No Deficiencies Deficient Existing Conditions
The study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours for Existing conditions.
Existing Plus Project (EP) Conditions
The study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours for Existing Plus Project conditions.
Future Build-out Year Cumulative (2030) Conditions
The study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours for Future Build-out Year Cumulative conditions with the exception of the following intersections:
• #2 – Oak Road/E Los Angeles Avenue (PM Peak Hour); and • #3 – Shunk Road/E Los Angeles Avenue (PM Peak Hour).
Future Build-Out Year Cumulative Plus Project (2030) Conditions The study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours for Future Build-Out Year Cumulative Plus Project conditions with the exception of the following intersections:
• #2 – Oak Road/E Los Angeles Avenue (PM Peak Hour); and • #3 – Shunk Road/E Los Angeles Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour).
1.2 ON-SITE ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
Wherever necessary, roadways adjacent to the proposed project site and site access points will be constructed in compliance with recommended roadway classifications and respective cross-sections in the City of Simi Valley General Plan or as directed by the City Engineer. 336
CVR-22-002
6 Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City sight distance standards at the time of final grading, landscaping and street improvement plans.
Signing/striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site.
337
CVR-22-002
7 2.0 INTRODUCTION
This traffic impact analysis (TIA) analyzes the projected traffic operations associated with the proposed 1845 Oak Road project located at 1845 Oak Road in the City of Simi Valley. The purpose of this TIA is to evaluate potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from development of the proposed project, and to recommend improvements to achieve acceptable operations, if applicable. This analysis has been prepared in coordination with the City of Simi Valley via a scoping agreement (See Appendix A) and is pursuant to applicable City of Simi Valley traffic impact analysis guidelines.
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of 70 multi-family residential dwelling units. Site access is planned via two fullaccess driveways on E Los Angeles Avenue. The site is currently zoned as CPD/RM and classified as CG/MD in the City of Simi Valley General Plan Land Use Plan. The project site is currently occupied by a preschool.
The proposed project is anticipated to be built and generating trips in 2024. Future Year (2030) volumes were provided in the Simi Valley General Plan EIR.
Exhibit 1 shows the project site location. Exhibit 2 shows the proposed project site plan.
2.2 STUDY AREA
The following three (3) intersections in the vicinity of the project site have been included in the intersection level of service (LOS) analysis:
1. Yosemite Avenue/E Los Angeles Avenue;
2. Oak Road/E Los Angeles Avenue; and
3. Shunk Road/E Los Angeles Avenue.
The study intersections are all located within the City of Simi Valley. This traffic analysis follows the City of Simi Valley Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Reports (October 2021).
Exhibit 3 shows the location of the study intersections and roadway segments which are analyzed for the following study scenarios:
• Existing Traffic Conditions (Existing);
• Existing Traffic plus Projects Conditions (Existing + Project); • Cumulative Traffic without Project Traffic Conditions (Existing + Model Data); and • Cumulative Traffic plus Project Traffic Conditions (Existing + Model Data + Project). 338
CVR-22-002
8 Traffic operations are evaluated for the following time periods:
• Weekday AM Peak Hour occurring within 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM; and • Weekday PM Peak Hour occurring within 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
2.3 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
2.3.1 Intersection Analysis Methodology
The traffic analysis focuses on the project’s off-site traffic-related impacts at the traffic study area intersections and on the study area roadways. In accordance with the City of Simi Valley, intersection operation for signalized intersections is evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, and intersection operation for unsignalized intersections is evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology.
The ICU methodology provides a comparison of the theoretical hourly vehicular capacity of an intersection to the number of vehicles passing through that intersection during the peak hour. The results of the evaluation are reported in terms of a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio, which corresponds to a Level of Service (LOS). Level of Service is represented by letter grades A through F, with LOS A representing free-flow conditions, and LOS F representing congested, over-capacity conditions.
The procedure for stop-control analysis determines the average total delay, expressed in seconds of delay per vehicle, for left turns from the major street and from the stop-controlled minor street traffic stream.
Delay values are calculated based on the relationship between traffic on the major street and the availability of acceptable “gaps” in this stream through which conflicting traffic movements can be made.
Table 1 identifies each Level of Service category, and the corresponding intersection capacity utilization and delay values:
Table 1
ICU – Volume-to-Capacity Ratio – Signalized Intersection Source: Transportation Research Board Circular 212 – Interim Materials on Highway Capacity.
LOS = Level of Service, ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization.
Level of Service Ranges
Level of Service (LOS) Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (ICU Methodology) A < 0.600
B 0.601 – 0.700 >
C 0.701 – 0.800 >
D 0.801 – 0.900 >
E 0.901 – 1.000 >
F >1.000
339
CVR-22-002
9 Collected peak hour traffic volumes have been adjusted using a peak hour factor (PHF) to reflect peak 15- minute volumes. It is a common practice in LOS analysis to conservatively use a peak 15-minute flow rate applied to the entire hour to derive flow rates in vehicles per hour that are used in the LOS analysis. The PHF is the relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume. PHF = [Hourly Volume]/ [4 * Peak 15-Minute Volume]. The use of a 15-minute PHF produces a more detailed and conservative analysis compared to analyzing vehicles per hour. Existing PHFs, obtained from the existing traffic counts have been used for all analysis scenarios in this study.
The City of Simi Valley traffic study guidelines also require unsignalized intersection operations be analyzed utilizing the HCM 6th Edition methodology. Intersection operation for unsignalized intersections is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
At a two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersection, LOS is calculated for each stop-controlled minor street movement, for the left-turn movement(s) from the major street, and for the intersection as a whole.
For approaches consisting of a single lane, the delay is calculated as the average of all movements in that lane. For all-way stop-controlled intersection, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole.
Table 2 describes the general characteristics of traffic flow and accompanying delay ranges at unsignalized intersections.
Table 2
HCM – LOS & Delay Ranges – Unsignalized Intersections
Level of
Service
Description
Delay
(in seconds)
A Little or no delays. 0 – 10.00
B Short traffic delays. 10.01 – 15.00
C Average traffic delays. 15.01 – 25.00
D Long traffic delays. Multiple vehicles in queue. 25.01 – 35.00 E Very long delays. Demand approaching capacity of intersection 35.01 – 50.00 F Very constrained flow with extreme delays and intersection capacity exceeded. > 50.01 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, HCM6 Edition (Washington D.C., 2016).
This analysis utilizes PTV Vistro 2022 analysis software for all signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized intersection capacity analysis specified in Chapter 16 of the HCM. The level of service and capacity analysis performed within Synchro takes the optimization and coordination of signalized intersections within a network into consideration.
340
CVR-22-002
10 2.4 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
2.4.1 City of Simi Valley
The City of Simi Valley has established level of service “C” or better as acceptable LOS for all intersections along the designated street and highway system in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element.
For the purposes of analyzing transportation deficiencies, the City of Simi Valley identifies deficiencies through a comparison of “without project” and “with project” traffic conditions. While the City of Simi Valley determines an intersection’s level of service using the HCM 6 methodology, the determination of a deficiency at an intersection is based on a project’s contribution to the intersection’s volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio as defined below in Table 3.
Table 3
City of Simi Valley Thresholds of Significance
Level of Service Significant Impact Threshold
C Increase in V/C > 0.0400
D Increase in V/C > 0.0200
E/F Increase in V/C > 0.0100
Note: V/C = Volume to capacity ratio
Source: City of Simi Valley Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (June 3, 2015) 341
Not to Scale
džŚŝďŝt ϭ͗ Wƌoũect >ocatŝoŶ 1845 Oak Road traffic impact Study CVR-22-002 *Site ϱ 342
Not to Scale
džŚŝďŝt Ϯ͗ WƌoƉoƐeĚ Wƌoũect Sŝte WlaŶ 1845 Oak Road traffic impact Study CVR-22-002 ϲ 343
Legend: Project Site Not to Scale
džŚŝďŝt ϯ͗ WƌoƉoƐeĚ d/ StƵĚLJ ƌea 1845 Oak Road traffic impact Study CVR-22-002 # Study Intersection Location 1 2 3 E Los Angeles Avenue Yosemite Avenue ϳ
344
CVR-22-002
14 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK/STUDY AREA CONDITIONS
The characteristics of the roadway system in the vicinity of the proposed project site are described in Table
4. Table 4
Roadway Characteristics within Study Area
Roadway Classification1Jurisdiction Direction
Existing
Travel
Lanes
Median
Type2
Speed
Limit
(mph)
On-Street
Parking
Yosemite Ave
Secondary
Arterial
Simi Valley
NorthSouth
4 NMTWLTL
45 No
E Los Angeles Ave Primary Arterial Simi Valley East-West 4 RMTWLTL
45 No
Oak Rd
Local Residential
Street
Simi Valley
NorthSouth
2 NM 35 No
Shunk Rd
Local Residential
Street
Simi Valley
NorthSouth
2 NM 35 No
1: Sources: City of Simi Valley General Plan (July, 2011) 2: TWLTL = Two-Way Left-Turn Lane, RM= Raised Median, NM = No Median.
Exhibit 4 show existing conditions study area intersection and roadway geometry.
3.2 CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT The proposed project site is located within the City of Simi Valley. Appendix A contains the current City of Simi Valley General Plan EIR and an explanation of roadway cross sections.
3.3 EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Within the study area, Class II bike lanes exist on E Los Angeles Avenue. A Class II bike lane is proposed on Yosemite Avenue.
Appendix A contains the City of Simi Valley General Plan Conceptual Trail System.
3.4 EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES
The City of Simi Valley is served by the Simi Valley Transit (SVT) which provides bus service throughout the city of Simi valley. Appendix A shows the SVT routes in the vicinity of the project site. The nearest transit service is SVT Route 10, and Route 20 with stops at the intersections of Yosemite Avenue/E Los Angeles 345
CVR-22-002
15 Avenue. Route 10 is approximately 450 feet away from the proposed project site and Route 20 is approximately 1,000 feet away from the proposed project site.
3.5 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
To determine the existing operation of the study intersections, AM and PM peak period traffic volumes were estimated based on new traffic counts collected on Wednesday, August 17, 2022. Detailed traffic count data is provided in Appendix B. Exhibit 5 shows existing AM and PM peak hour volumes at the study intersections.
3.6 EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Existing conditions AM and PM peak hour intersection analysis is shown in Table 5. Calculations are based on the existing geometrics at the study area intersections as shown in Exhibit 4. HCM analysis sheets are provided in Appendix C.
Table 5
Intersection Analysis – Existing Conditions
Intersection Control Type Peak Hour
Existing Conditions
ICU/Delay1LOS
1 Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Signal
AM 0.403 A
PM 0.337 A
2 Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue OWSC
AM 15.3 C
PM 16.0 C
3 Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue TWSC
AM 21.2 C
PM 22.0 C
Note: TWSC = Two-Way Stop-Control, OWSC = One-Way Stop-Control; Delay shown in seconds per vehicle. 1 = Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, overall average delay and LOS are shown for intersections with one-or-two-way stop-control, the delay and LOS for the worst individual movement is shown.
As shown in Table 5, the study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours for existing conditions.
346
Not to Scale
džŚŝďŝt ϰ͗ >aŶe 'eoŵetƌLJ aŶĚ /ŶteƌƐectŝoŶ oŶtƌolƐ 1845 Oak Road traffic impact Study CVR-22-002 Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/ E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue 1 2 3 E Los Angeles Avenue Yosemite Avenue ϭϬ
347
Not to Scale
džŚŝďŝt ϱ͗
džŝƐtŝŶŐ D aŶĚ WD WeaŬ ,oƵƌ solƵŵeƐ 1845 Oak Road traffic impact Study CVR-22-002 ϭϭ Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/ E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/ E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 348
CVR-22-002
18 4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
4.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of 70 multi-family residential dwelling units. Site access is planned via two fullaccess driveways on E Los Angeles Avenue. The site is currently zoned as CPD/RM and classified as CG/MD in the City of Simi Valley General Plan Land Use Plan. The project site is currently occupied by a preschool.
The proposed project is anticipated to be built and generating trips in 2024. Future Year (2030) volumes were provided in the Simi Valley General Plan EIR.
Exhibit 2 previously showed the proposed project site plan.
4.2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic, both inbound and outbound, produced by a development.
Determining trip generation for a proposed project is based on projecting the amount of traffic that the specific land uses being proposed will produce. Industry standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition, 2017) trip generation rates were used to determine trip generation of for most of the proposed project land uses.
Table 6 summarizes the projected AM peak hour, PM peak hour and daily trip generation of the proposed project. The proposed project is projected to generate 472 daily trips, 28 AM peak hour trips, and 36 PM peak hour trips.
Table 6
Proposed Project Trip Generation
1: Rates from ITE Trip Generation 11th Edition, 2021(Land Use 220) 2: DU = Dwelling Units
4.3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Projecting trip distribution involves the process of identifying probable destinations and traffic routes that will be utilized by the proposed project’s traffic. The potential interaction between the proposed land use and surrounding regional access routes are considered to identify the probable routes onto which project Proposed Land Use1 Qty Unit2
Daily Trips (ADTs) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Volume Rate In:Out
Split
Volume
Rate In:Out
Split
Volume
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 70 DU 6.74 472 0.40 24:76 7 21 28 0.51 63:37 22 14 36 Total 472 7 21 28 22 14 36
349
CVR-22-002
19 traffic would distribute. The projected trip distribution for the proposed project is based on anticipated travel patterns to and from the project site.
Exhibit 6 shows the projected trip distribution of proposed project trips.
4.4 SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS
A sight distance analysis for the proposed driveway at East Los Angeles Avenue has been prepared based on the “stopping sight distance” requirements determined by Topic 201 and Table 201.1 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), last edition.
In this analysis, the movements being analyzed at the Project Driveways, intersection #2 and #3 are movements from the proposed project onto East Los Angeles Avenue. Based on the posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour on East Los Angeles Avenue. The results of this sight distance analysis are shown in Exhibit 7. 350
Not to Scale
džŚŝďŝt ϲ͗ dƌŝƉ ŝƐtƌŝďƵtŝoŶ aŶĚ dƌŝƉ ƐƐŝŐŶŵeŶtƐ at StƵĚLJ /ŶteƌƐectŝoŶƐ 1845 Oak Road traffic impact Study CVR-22-002 1 2 3 E Los Angeles Avenue Yosemite Avenue ϭϰ 5% 60% 5% 70% 30% Legend: Project Site # Study Intersection Location XX%/XX% Percent Trip Distribution Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/ E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/ E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 351
Not to Scale
džŚŝďŝt ϳ͗ SŝŐŚt ŝƐtaŶce ŶalLJƐŝƐ 1845 Oak Road traffic impact Study CVR-22-002 ϭϱ 352
CVR-22-002
22 5.0 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS (EP)
Existing Plus Project traffic conditions (EP) analysis is intended to identify existing conditions with the proposed project.
5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for the EP scenario are consistent with those previously shown in Exhibit 4.
5.2 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EP volumes includes existing traffic with the proposed project traffic volumes.
Existing Plus Project Volumes = (Existing (2022) Counts) + Project Exhibit 8 shows Existing Plus Project AM and PM peak hour volumes at the study intersections.
5.3 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Existing Plus Project AM and PM peak hour intersection analysis is shown in Exhibit 8. Calculations are based on the existing geometrics at the study area intersections as shown in Exhibit 3. HCM analysis sheets are provided in Appendix C.
Table 7
Intersection Analysis – Existing Plus Project (EP) Conditions Intersection Control Type Peak Hour
EP Conditions
ICU/Delay1LOS
1 Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Signal
AM 0.408 A
PM 0.342 A
2 Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue OWSC
AM 15.6 C
PM 16.2 C
3 Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue TWSC
AM 21.4 C
PM 21.9 C
Note: TWSC = Two-Way Stop-Control, OWSC = One-Way Stop-Control; Delay shown in seconds per vehicle. 1 = Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, overall average delay and LOS are shown for signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections. For intersections with one-or-two-way stop-control, the delay and LOS for the worst individual movement is shown.
As shown in Table 7 the study intersections are projected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours for existing plus project conditions. 353
Not to Scale
džŚŝďŝt ϴ͗
džŝƐtŝŶŐ WlƵƐ Wƌoũect D aŶĚ WD WeaŬ ,oƵƌ solƵŵeƐ 1845 Oak Road traffic impact Study CVR-22-002 ϭϳ Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/ E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/ E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 354
CVR-22-002
24 6.0 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (CNP) Cumulative Traffic without Project (CNP) traffic conditions analysis is intended identify baseline conditions in the near-term with cumulative projects and without the proposed project.
6.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for the cumulative traffic without project traffic scenario are consistent with those previously shown in Exhibit 4, with the exception of:
• E Los Angeles Avenue: Consistent with the general plan improvements, an additional thru lane is added in the eastbound and westbound directions.
6.2 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
CNP conditions volumes were estimated based on yearly growth rates from base year (2006) to forecast year (2030) in the City of Simi Valley model. Model volumes are included in Appendix B.
Cumulative Traffic without Project Traffic Volumes = (Existing (2022) Counts + model data) The model (2030) volumes were taken from intersection #1 Yosemite Avenue/E Los Angeles Avenue and were balanced throughout the rest of the intersections while keeping the same driveway volumes as they are private roads and there are not any planned developments that would utilize these driveways for access.
Exhibit 9 shows cumulative traffic without project AM and PM peak hour volumes at the study intersections.
6.3 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Cumulative traffic without project conditions AM and PM peak hour intersection analysis is shown in Table
8. HCM analysis sheets are provided in Appendix C.
355
CVR-22-002
25 Table 8
Intersection Analysis – Cumulative Traffic Without Project (CNP) Conditions Intersection Control Type Peak Hour
CNP Conditions
ICU/Delay1LOS
1 Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Signal
AM 0.457 A
PM 0.644 B
2 Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue OWSC
AM 18.1 C
PM 34.3 D
3 Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue TWSC
AM 24.8 C
PM 124.3 F
Note: AWSC = All- Way Stop-Control, OWSC = One-Way Stop Control, Delay shown in seconds per vehicle. 1 = Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, overall average delay and LOS are shown for signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections. For intersections with one-or-two-way stop-control, the delay and LOS for the worst individual movement is shown.
As shown in Table 8, the study intersections are projected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours for cumulative traffic without project conditions with the exception of the following intersections. It should be noted, the deficiency occurs for the private driveway approaches and not along the primary roadway of E Los Angeles Avenue.
• #1 – Oak Road/E Los Angeles Avenue (PM Peak Hour); and • #2 – Shunk Road/E Los Angeles Avenue (PM Peak Hour).
356
Not to Scale
džŚŝďŝt ϵ͗ ƵŵƵlatŝǀe dƌaĨĨŝc tŝtŚoƵt Wƌoũect D aŶĚ WD WeaŬ ,oƵƌ solƵŵeƐ 1845 Oak Road traffic impact Study CVR-22-002 Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/ E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/ E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR ϮϬ 357
CVR-22-002
27 7.0 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (CWP) Cumulative traffic plus project traffic (CWP) conditions analysis is intended to identify the project-related impacts on both the existing and planned near-term circulation system.
7.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for the cumulative traffic plus project traffic scenario are consistent with those previously shown in Exhibit 4, with the exception of:
• E Los Angeles Avenue: Consistent with the general plan improvements, an additional thru lane is added in the eastbound and westbound directions.
7.2 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
CWP conditions volumes were estimated based on yearly growth rates from base year (2006) to forecast year (2030) in the City of Simi Valley model. Model volumes are included in Appendix B.
Cumulative Traffic Plus Project Traffic Volumes = (Existing (2022) Counts + model data + Project) The model (2030) volumes were taken from intersection #1 Yosemite Avenue/E Los Angeles Avenue and were balanced throughout the rest of the intersections while keeping the same driveway volumes as they are private roads and there are not any planned developments that would utilize these driveways for access.
Exhibit 10 shows cumulative traffic plus project traffic AM and PM peak hour volumes at the study intersections.
7.3 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Cumulative traffic plus project traffic conditions AM and PM peak hour intersection analysis is shown in Table 9 HCM analysis sheets are provided in Appendix C.
358
CVR-22-002
28 Table 9
Intersection Analysis – Cumulative Traffic Plus Project Traffic (CWP) Conditions Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
CNP
Conditions
CWP
Conditions Change Impact?
ICU/Delay1LOS ICU/Delay1
LOS
1 Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Signal
AM 0.457 A 0.460 A 0.003 No
PM 0.644 B 0.649 B 0.005 No
2 Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue OWSC
AM 18.1 C 18.7 C 0.6 No
PM 34.3 D 35.2 E 0.9 No
3 Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue TWSC
AM 24.8 C 25.6 D 0.8 No
PM 124.3 F 142.5 F 18.2 No
Note: AWSC = All- Way Stop-Control, OWSC = One-Way Stop Control, Delay shown in seconds per vehicle. 1 = Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, overall average delay and LOS are shown for signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections. For intersections with one-or-two-way stop-control, the delay and LOS for the worst individual movement is shown.
As shown in Table 9, the study intersections are projected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours for cumulative traffic plus project traffic conditions with the exception of the following intersections. It should be noted, the deficiency occurs for the private driveway approaches and not along the primary roadway of E Los Angeles Avenue.
• #1 – Oak Road/E Los Angeles Avenue (PM Peak Hour); and • #2 – Shunk Road/E Los Angeles Avenue (PM Peak Hour).
359
Not to Scale
džŚŝďŝt ϭϬ͗ ƵŵƵlatŝǀe dƌaĨĨŝc WlƵƐ Wƌoũect dƌaĨĨŝc Wƌoũect D aŶĚ WD WeaŬ ,oƵƌ solƵŵeƐ 1845 Oak Road traffic impact Study CVR-22-002 Ϯϯ Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/ E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/ E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 360
CVR-22-002
30 APPENDIX
361
APPENDIX A
SCOPING AGREEMENT AND CITY DOCS
362
1845 Oak Road
Traffic Impact Analysis
CVR-22-002
1 Scoping Agreement for Traffic Impact Analysis
This form acknowledges the requirements for the traffic impact analysis of the following project. The analysis will follow the local jurisdiction’s traffic impact analysis guidelines.
Project Name: 1845 Oak Road
Project Address: 1845 Oak Road, City of Simi Valley
Project Description: 65 multi-family residential dwelling units.
Consultant Developer
Name: TJW Engineering City Ventures
Address: 9841 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: 949-878-3509
Email: [email protected]
Trip Generation Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021) Current GP Land Use: GC/MD Proposed Land Use: GC/MD
Current Zoning: CPD/RM Proposed Zoning: CPD/PM
Is the project screened from LOS analysis? Yes X No
Justification:
Is the project screened from VMT analysis? Yes X No
Justification: Per City guidelines, City staff will conduct a VMT analysis using the City Traffic Model. The results of the analysis will be provided to TJW and incorporated into the report. 363
1845 Oak Road
Traffic Impact Analysis
CVR-22-002
2 Existing Trip Generation Proposed Trip Generation
In Out Total In Out Total
AM Trips 6 20 26
PM Trips 21 12 33
Daily 438
Internal Trip Capture: Yes X No % Trip Discount
Pass-By Allowance: Yes X No % Trip Discount
Trip Distribution: See attached exhibit
Project Build-out Year: 2024 Annual Ambient Growth Rate: 2% Study Intersections:
1. Yosemite Avenue/ E Los Angeles Avenue 6.
2. Shunk Road/ E Los Angeles Avenue 7.
3. Project Dwy/E Los Angeles Avenue 8.
4. Shunk Road/Project Dwy 9.
5. 10.
Study Roadway Segments:
1. E Los Angeles Avenue East of Yosemite 3.
2. 4.
Analysis Scenarios:
1. Existing Traffic Conditions
2. Existing Traffic Plus Project Conditions
3. Opening Year Without Project Conditions
4. Opening Year With Project Conditions
5. Other Jurisdiction Analyzed? Yes X No Name of Jurisdiction:
Date of Traffic Counts: New counts will be collected
Cumulative Traffic without proposed Project Traffic Conditions Cumulative Traffic with proposed project Traffic Conditions 364
1845 Oak Road
Traffic Impact Analysis
CVR-22-002
3 Additional
Items to be
Addressed:
Additional
Notes:
Authorizations:
Daniel Flores
Consultant’s Representative City (Approved By)
Signature Signature
8/2/22
Date Date
365
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 65 DU 6.74 438 0.40 24:76 6 20 26 0.51 63:37 21 12 33 2: DU = Dwelling Units.
Proposed Land Use1 Qty Unit2
Daily Trips (ADTs) AM Peak Hour
1: Rates from ITE Trip Generation 11th Edition, 2021 (Land Use 220).
Table 1
Proposed Project Trip Generation
PM Peak Hour
Rate Volume Rate In:Out Split Volume Rate In:Out Split Volume 366
Legend: Project Site Not to Scale
džŚŝďŝt ϭ͗ Wƌoũect >ocatŝoŶ 1845 Oak Road traffic impact Study CVR-22-002 XX% Percent Trip Distribution # Study Intersection Location 1 3 24 30% 70% 60% 5% 5% E Los Angeles Avenue Yosemite Avenue Study Roadway Segment
367
Not to Scale
džŚŝďŝt Ϯ͗ WƌoƉoƐeĚ Wƌoũect Sŝte WlaŶ 1845 Oak Road traffic impact Study CVR-22-002 368
0 0.25 0.5
1 1.5
Miles
Legend
Sphere of Influence
City Urban Restriction Boundary
City Boundary
Water Body
Major Road
Railroad
COCHRAN ST
ALAMO ST
ROYAL AVE FIRST ST
TAPO ST
MADERA RD
ERRINGER RD
SEQUOIA AVE
F
I
T
Z
G
E
R
A
L
D
R
D
YOSEMITE AVE
LOS
ANGELES
AVE
TAPO CANYON RD
MADERA RD
SYCAMORE DR
KUEHNER DR
STEARNS ST
WOOD RANCH PKWY
LONG CANYON
RD
E AS
Y
ST
COT
T
O
NW
OO
D
D
R
GUARDIAN ST
LO
S ANGELES AVE
OLSEN RD
BLACK CANYON RD
BOX CANYON RD
TIERRA REJADA RD
LOST CANYONS DR
Bard
Reservoir
Sinaloa
Lake
Collector
Collector (not built)
Minor Arterial
Minor Arterial (not built)
Secondary Arterial
Secondary Arterial (not built)
Primary Arterial
Freeway
118
Figure 4.16-2
Roadway Classifications
0D2133100 | Palm-Industrial Distribution Center Project
SCALE IN MILES
Source: TIA, 2010.
369
COCHRAN ST
ALAMO ST
ROYAL AVE FIRST ST
TAPO ST
MADERA RD
ERRINGER RD
SEQUOIA AVE
F
I
T
Z
G
E
R
A
L
D
R
D
YOSEMITE AVE
LOS
ANGELES
AVE
TAPO CANYON RD
MADERA RD
SYCAMORE DR
KUEHNER DR
STEARNS ST
WOOD RANCH PKWY
LONG CANYON
RD
E AS
Y
ST
COT
T
O
NW
OO
D
D
R
GUARDIAN ST
LO
S ANGELES AVE
OLSEN RD
BLACK CANYON RD
BOX CANYON RD
TIERRA REJADA RD
LOST CANYONS DR
Bard
Reservoir
Sinaloa
Lake
0 0.25 0.51 1.5
Miles
Legend
Sphere of Influence
City Urban Restriction Boundary
City Boundary
Water Body
Major Road
Railroad
Study Intersection Simi Valley Transit Route A
Simi Valley Transit Route B
Simi Valley Transit Route C
Simi Valley Transit Route D
Metrolink Station
LADOT Commuter Express
VISTA- East
Figure 4.16-6
Transit Routes
0D2133100 | Palm-Industrial Distribution Center Project
SCALE IN MILES
Source: TIA, 2010.-
370
APPENDIX B
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS AND MODEL VOLUMES
371
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS T218
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
DATE: LOCATION: Simi Valley PROJECT #: SC3595
Wed, Aug 17, 22 NORTH & SOUTH: Yosemite LOCATION #: 1
EAST & WEST: Los Angeles CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS
Yosemite Yosemite Los Angeles Los Angeles
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 1 2 0 1.5 1.5 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
AM
7:00 AM 9 42 9 15 7 16 29 44 1 6 42 39 259 0 0 1 1 2
7:15 AM 11 35 6 16 11 12 22 53 5 4 63 55 293 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 5 41 10 44 12 15 29 62 3 7 90 64 382 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 15 47 11 38 31 15 35 74 5 22 102 67 462 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 13 47 19 43 30 35 53 96 11 20 122 60 549 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 12 42 9 31 20 34 44 95 11 11 100 67 476 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 11 26 11 39 16 23 22 78 8 8 86 47 375 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 8 26 8 27 11 19 15 62 2 7 84 43 312 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 84 306 83 253 138 169 249 564 46 85 689 442 3,108 0 0 1 1 2 APPROACH % 18% 65% 18% 45% 25% 30% 29% 66% 5% 7% 57% 36% APP/DEPART 473 / 996 560 / 268 859 / 901 1,216 / 943 0
BEGIN PEAK HR 7:30 AM
VOLUMES 45 177 49 156 93 99 161 327 30 60 414 258 1,869 APPROACH % 17% 65% 18% 45% 27% 28% 31% 63% 6% 8% 57% 35% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.858 0.806 0.809 0.906 0.851
APP/DEPART 271 / 596 348 / 183 518 / 532 732 / 558 0
PM
4:00 PM 9 20 10 35 24 24 37 79 5 14 78 32 367 0 0 1 2 3 4:15 PM 4 17 8 64 21 13 34 82 11 9 78 36 377 0 0 1 0 1
4:30 PM 3 15 6 49 38 30 31 88 8 11 92 40 411 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 13 29 8 45 33 21 34 94 6 13 83 28 407 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 11 17 9 44 37 28 35 110 14 13 89 28 435 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 3 27 6 55 26 23 39 104 10 13 92 38 436 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 10 27 9 64 35 28 29 89 1 9 83 33 417 0 0 1 0 1
5:45 PM 9 30 9 53 33 22 42 96 6 10 91 35 436 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 62 182 65 409 247 189 281 742 61 92 686 270 3,286 0 0 3 2 5 APPROACH % 20% 59% 21% 48% 29% 22% 26% 68% 6% 9% 65% 26% APP/DEPART 309 / 730 845 / 398 1,084 / 1,218 1,048 / 940 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 5:00 PM
VOLUMES 33 101 33 216 131 101 145 399 31 45 355 134 1,724 APPROACH % 20% 60% 20% 48% 29% 23% 25% 69% 5% 8% 66% 25% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.870 0.882 0.904 0.934 0.989
APP/DEPART 167 / 379 448 / 207 575 / 648 534 / 490 0
Yosemite
NORTH SIDE
Los Angeles WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Los Angeles
SOUTH SIDE
Yosemite
PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS
N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL AM
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AM BEGIN PEAK HR 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
PM
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM BEGIN PEAK HR 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
372
AimTD LLC
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Yosemite
1,405 358 385 662 TOTAL 1,726
845 189 247 409 PM 730
560 169 138 253 AM 996
Los Angeles
1,2161,0482,264
Los Angeles
1,883
940943
442270712
Simi Valley
689686
1,375
TOTAL
PM
AM
SC3595
8592
177
530281249
ALL HOURS
AM
PM
TOTAL
1,306
742564
107
6146
901
1,2182,119
1,9431,084
859
268 AM 84 306 83 473
398 PM 62 182 65 309
666 TOTAL 146 488 148 782
Yosemite
Yosemite
796 200 224 372 TOTAL 975
448 101 131 216 PM 379
348 99 93 156 AM 596
Los Angeles
732534
1,266
Los Angeles
1,048
490558
258134392
PEAK HOUR
414355769
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:30 AM
8:45 AM
6045
105
306145161
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
726399327
PM 5:00 PM
5:45 PM
613130
532648
1,180
1,093
575518
183 AM 45 177 49 271
207 PM 33 101 33 167
390 Total 78 278 82 438
Yosemite
373
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS T218
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
DATE: LOCATION: Simi Valley PROJECT #: SC3595
Wed, Aug 17, 22 NORTH & SOUTH: Oak LOCATION #: 2
EAST & WEST: Los Angeles CONTROL: STOP N
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS
Oak Oak Los Angeles Los Angeles
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 0 X 0 X X X X 2 0 0 2 X 0 0 0 0
AM
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 104 0 173 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 148 0 224 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 2 161 0 286 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 0 1 208 0 337 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 0 0 216 0 373 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 1 1 198 0 332 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 1 0 133 0 261 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 100 3 1 121 0 227 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 907 5 5 1,289 0 2,213 0 0 0 0 0
APPROACH % 86% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99% 1% 0% 100% 0%
APP/DEPART 7 / 0 0 / 10 912 / 908 1,294 / 1,295 0
BEGIN PEAK HR 7:30 AM
VOLUMES 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 535 1 4 783 0 1,328
APPROACH % 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 1% 99% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.417 0.000 0.854 0.911 0.890
APP/DEPART 5 / 0 0 / 5 536 / 535 787 / 788 0
PM
4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 157 2 4 114 0 278 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 164 6 3 131 0 308 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 2 1 145 0 310 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 164 0 1 132 0 298 0 0 1 0 1
5:00 PM 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 185 2 2 143 0 339 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 180 2 2 138 0 329 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 1 149 0 321 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 188 2 2 136 0 329 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 13 0 9 0 0 0 1 1,369 16 16 1,088 0 2,512 0 0 1 0 1 APPROACH % 59% 0% 41% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99% 1% 1% 99% 0%
APP/DEPART 22 / 0 0 / 32 1,386 / 1,378 1,104 / 1,102 0
BEGIN PEAK HR 5:00 PM
VOLUMES 9 0 7 0 0 0 0 723 6 7 566 0 1,318
APPROACH % 56% 0% 44% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99% 1% 1% 99% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.571 0.000 0.959 0.955 0.972
APP/DEPART 16 / 0 0 / 13 729 / 730 573 / 575 0
Oak
NORTH SIDE
Los Angeles WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Los Angeles
SOUTH SIDE
Oak
PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS
N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL AM
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AM BEGIN PEAK HR 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
PM
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM BEGIN PEAK HR 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
374
AimTD LLC
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Oak
0000 TOTAL0
0000 PM0
0000 AM0
Los Angeles
1,2941,1042,398
Los Angeles
2,3971,1021,295
000
Simi Valley
1,2891,0882,377
TOTAL
PM
AM
SC3595
5 1621
110
ALL HOURS
AM
PM
TOTAL
2,2761,369
907
2116
5 908
1,3782,286
2,2981,386
912
10 AM6017
32 PM 13
09 22
42 TOTAL 190 10 29
Oak
Oak
0000 TOTAL0
0000 PM0
0000 AM0
Los Angeles
787573
1,360
Los Angeles
1,363
575788
000
PEAK HOUR
783566
1,349
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:30 AM
8:45 AM
47 11
000
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
1,258
723535
PM 5:00 PM
5:45 PM
761
535730
1,265
1,265
729536
5 AM5005
13 PM
907 16
18 Total 1407 21
Oak
375
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS T218
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
DATE: LOCATION: Simi Valley PROJECT #: SC3595
Wed, Aug 17, 22 NORTH & SOUTH: Shunk LOCATION #: 3
EAST & WEST: Los Angeles CONTROL: STOP N/S
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS
Shunk Shunk Los Angeles Los Angeles
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
AM
7:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 24 11 54 3 1 81 1 177 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 1 1 0 3 0 23 5 69 2 1 125 0 230 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 5 1 0 1 0 23 7 110 3 2 136 2 290 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 2 0 0 2 0 24 10 110 5 2 183 2 340 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 3 1 3 2 1 25 12 133 11 2 187 4 384 0 0 1 0 1
8:15 AM 4 0 0 0 0 28 10 119 2 0 168 4 335 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 1 0 2 1 1 16 12 106 9 1 116 1 266 0 0 1 0 1
8:45 AM 9 1 3 0 1 23 7 84 9 8 90 0 235 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 25 4 9 10 3 186 74 785 44 17 1,086 14 2,257 0 0 2 0 2 APPROACH % 66% 11% 24% 5% 2% 93% 8% 87% 5% 2% 97% 1%
APP/DEPART 38 / 90 199 / 64 903 / 804 1,117 / 1,299 0
BEGIN PEAK HR 7:30 AM
VOLUMES 14 2 3 5 1 100 39 472 21 6 674 12 1,349
APPROACH % 74% 11% 16% 5% 1% 94% 7% 89% 4% 1% 97% 2%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.679 0.946 0.853 0.896 0.878
APP/DEPART 19 / 52 106 / 28 532 / 480 692 / 789 0
PM
4:00 PM 6 1 5 2 0 13 12 128 17 4 100 4 292 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 7 1 9 0 0 13 17 138 10 1 114 3 313 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 8 1 3 0 0 15 14 140 7 3 123 6 320 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 9 0 4 3 0 13 20 135 9 1 111 0 305 0 1 0 0 1
5:00 PM 7 2 6 2 1 13 18 163 7 1 126 1 347 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 7 1 2 0 3 10 26 153 3 1 122 2 330 0 0 1 0 1
5:30 PM 1 1 6 0 0 14 18 148 4 0 136 2 330 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 3 1 2 1 0 12 29 156 3 2 124 0 333 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 48 8 37 8 4 103 154 1,161 60 13 956 18 2,570 0 1 1 0 2 APPROACH % 52% 9% 40% 7% 3% 90% 11% 84% 4% 1% 97% 2%
APP/DEPART 93 / 180 115 / 77 1,375 / 1,205 987 / 1,108 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 5:00 PM
VOLUMES 18 5 16 3 4 49 91 620 17 4 508 5 1,340
APPROACH % 46% 13% 41% 5% 7% 88% 13% 85% 2% 1% 98% 1%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.650 0.875 0.968 0.937 0.965
APP/DEPART 39 / 100 56 / 25 728 / 639 517 / 576 0
Shunk
NORTH SIDE
Los Angeles WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Los Angeles
SOUTH SIDE
Shunk
PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS
N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL AM
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AM BEGIN PEAK HR 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
PM
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM BEGIN PEAK HR 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
376
AimTD LLC
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Shunk
314 2897 18 TOTAL 270
115 10348 PM 180
199 1863 10 AM 90
Los Angeles
1,117
987
2,104
Los Angeles
2,4071,1081,299
141832
Simi Valley
1,086
956
2,042
TOTAL
PM
AM
SC3595
171330
228154
74 ALL HOURS
AM
PM
TOTAL
1,9461,161
785
104
6044
804
1,2052,009
2,2781,375
903
64 AM 2549 38
77 PM 48
8 37 93
141 TOTAL 73 12 46 131
Shunk
Shunk
162 14958 TOTAL 152
56 4943 PM 100
106 10015 AM 52
Los Angeles
692517
1,209
Los Angeles
1,365
576789
12 5
17 PEAK HOUR
674508
1,182
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:30 AM
8:45 AM
64 10
130
9139
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
1,092
620472
PM 5:00 PM
5:45 PM
381721
480639
1,119
1,260
728532
28 AM 1423 19
25 PM 18
5 16 39
53 Total 327 19 58
Shunk
377
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 1 Rocky Peak Fire Rd & SR‐118 WB Ramps 2 6 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 147 0 3 2 Rocky Peak Fire Rd & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 270 277 17 128 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 3 Kuehner Dr & Smith Rd 0 216 24 54 456 0 0 0 0 11 0 42 4 Kuehner Dr & Katherine Rd 27 215 4 2 413 124 261 11 108 12 3 5 5 Kuehner Dr & Los Angeles Ave 241 463 0 0 294 265 184 0 286 0 0 0 6 Kuehner Dr & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 603 412 75 343 0 57 0 315 0 0 0 7 Kuehner Dr & SR‐118 WB Ramps 617 29 0 0 64 41 0 0 0 351 0 15 8 Yosemite Ave & Evening Sky Dr 4 181 58 12 191 4 5 1 9 251 2 44 9 Yosemite Ave & Alamo St 402 290 0 0 719 219 58 0 324 0 0 0 10 Yosemite Ave & SR‐118 WB Ramps 0 401 423 0 1,087 0 0 0 0 144 0 415 11 Yosemite Ave & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 1,111 0 0 549 511 110 0 284 0 0 0 12 Yosemite Ave & Cochran St 110 824 13 52 416 190 368 49 121 32 59 147 13 Yosemite Ave & Los Angeles Ave 141 306 93 288 116 139 157 437 63 70 551 302 14 Stow St & Cochran St 130 29 45 36 71 111 162 482 195 60 262 15 15 Stow St & Los Angeles Ave 207 110 52 111 110 265 107 1,155 151 20 815 140 16 Stearns St & Alamo St 339 40 50 10 68 72 39 291 420 171 481 6 17 Stearns St & SR‐118 WB Ramps 6 254 412 0 787 14 2 0 41 286 75 208 18 Stearns St & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 1,084 9 31 556 373 70 6 228 14 0 23 19 Stearns St & Cochran St 134 659 168 305 343 241 312 512 132 48 298 252 20 Stearns St & Los Angeles Ave 16 21 6 174 26 297 373 643 14 1 893 212 21 Los Angeles Ave & Hidden Ranch Dr 207 0 245 6 2 6 22 1,010 60 126 1,337 49 22 Los Angeles Ave & Ralston Ave 0 0 0 23 0 91 28 1,183 0 0 1,476 36 23 Kadota St & Cochran St 0 0 0 48 0 89 44 681 2 1 665 13 24 Kadota St & Alamo St 8 22 6 79 33 51 42 688 34 16 685 78 25 Tapo St & Walnut St 17 81 30 7 153 11 11 13 43 100 22 12 26 Tapo St & Alamo St 121 358 43 313 497 325 109 314 186 67 459 239 27 Tapo St & Cochran St 122 283 103 235 464 230 213 412 112 187 358 124 28 Tapo St & Los Angeles Ave 37 68 37 200 124 379 421 803 81 122 1,174 222 29 Tapo Canyon Rd & Royal Ave 33 41 0 175 243 399 656 33 110 1 8 12 30 Tapo Canyon Rd & Los Angeles Ave 15 257 311 315 386 138 186 547 16 200 992 145 31 Tapo Canyon Rd & Cochran St 56 546 100 243 1,067 318 491 501 103 74 361 334 32 Tapo Canyon Rd & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 1,331 33 8 965 590 345 7 360 0 0 9 33 Tapo Canyon Rd & SR‐118 WB Ramps 87 611 509 0 859 602 20 0 119 672 53 378 34 Tapo Canyon Rd & Alamo St 153 235 124 47 543 106 79 260 315 317 315 63 35 Tapo Canyon Rd & Township Ave 32 277 140 33 575 44 38 143 71 193 111 9 36 Tapo Canyon Rd & Lost Canyons Dr 127 132 0 0 634 30 44 0 89 0 0 0 37 Sequoia Ave & Alamo St 112 35 127 63 199 212 50 563 75 105 537 16 38 Sequoia Ave & Cochran St 198 233 323 181 350 74 51 646 123 172 480 116 39 Sequoia Ave & Los Angeles Ave 120 413 73 117 302 411 221 828 50 120 1,058 119 40 Sequoia Ave & Royal Ave 118 338 217 26 193 246 213 498 29 99 294 8 41 Cochran St & Galena Ave 113 96 83 109 92 191 152 621 35 60 687 86 42 Sycamore Dr & Alamo St 115 793 325 80 320 124 137 293 246 532 538 245 43 Sycamore Dr & SR‐118 WB Ramps 0 977 503 3 1,086 0 0 0 0 342 0 193 44 Sycamore Dr & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 1,532 38 115 647 304 450 75 276 12 1 52 45 Sycamore Dr & Cochran St 160 871 101 216 410 341 456 437 77 133 477 219 46 Sycamore Dr & Los Angeles Ave 74 699 92 184 452 199 280 523 20 167 867 351 47 Sycamore Dr & Royal Ave 192 394 110 126 262 252 297 748 62 124 830 102 48 Sycamore Dr & Fitzgerald Rd 0 0 0 101 0 240 287 171 0 0 252 338 49 Erringer Rd & Fitzgerald Rd 91 301 107 184 164 159 231 222 8 100 239 170 50 Erringer Rd & Royal Ave 108 599 45 105 569 409 402 654 50 81 779 194 51 Erringer Rd & Patricia Ave 155 1,264 69 44 1,169 53 60 11 79 31 8 39 52 Erringer Rd & Los Angeles Ave 200 765 72 121 652 263 266 469 207 142 678 104 53 Erringer Rd & Cochran St 152 826 78 106 852 256 371 334 101 198 474 247 54 Erringer Rd & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 1,341 9 8 887 274 81 1 205 12 3 9 55 Erringer Rd & SR‐118 WB Ramps 82 548 399 0 947 510 112 0 134 408 69 108 56 Erringer Rd & Alamo St 12 430 266 170 418 1 0 13 27 634 1 296 57 Los Angeles Ave & Hubbard St 60 0 33 0 0 0 48 1,151 26 29 1,323 41 58 Los Angeles Ave & Patricia Ave 186 34 28 106 13 142 264 1,027 86 49 1,638 182 59 First St & SR‐118 WB Ramps 150 669 455 0 575 257 16 0 155 809 132 122 60 First St & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 1,821 0 0 1,078 110 306 0 278 0 0 0 61 First St & Cochran St 242 1,477 260 52 959 244 90 181 102 357 498 101 62 First St & E Easy St 182 1,431 102 229 1,275 296 94 27 54 43 73 250 63 First St & Los Angeles Ave 161 765 233 307 563 386 635 634 33 299 1,027 420 64 First St & Royal Ave 402 853 210 424 410 304 270 765 206 98 1,047 360 65 First St & Fitzgerald Rd 0 1,109 362 178 371 0 0 0 0 223 0 334 66 Sinaloa Rd & Los Angeles Ave 210 59 369 36 50 16 5 775 127 155 1,483 22 67 Sinaloa Rd & Royal Ave 231 253 94 112 123 203 93 659 132 102 1,194 244 68 Viewline Dr & SR‐118 WB Ramps 32 0 1,132 0 0 0 0 50 34 299 53 0 69 Madera Rd & Viewline Dr 298 471 0 0 207 52 4 0 1,205 0 0 0 70 Madera Rd & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 325 854 0 1,269 46 171 0 238 0 0 0 71 Madera Rd & Cochran St 445 838 301 118 1,092 437 201 91 206 438 283 131 72 Madera Rd & Easy St 136 1,398 218 105 1,228 246 116 39 85 67 79 69 73 Madera Rd & Los Angeles Ave/Tierra Rejada Rd 248 946 258 74 563 256 383 416 39 489 885 205 74 Madera Rd & Royal Ave 2 1,073 464 308 1,272 17 37 59 11 999 23 389 75 Tierra Rejada Rd & Stargaze Pl 25 0 127 86 0 18 10 917 1 48 915 35 76 Madera Rd & Country Club Dr East 39 3 427 18 7 21 4 1,025 28 126 2,146 2 77 Wood Ranch Parkway & Madera Rd 269 5 351 39 8 4 3 1,102 61 147 2,488 5 78 Wood Ranch Parkway & Country Club Dr West 39 247 106 102 184 10 173 138 33 723 420 161 79 Wood Ranch Parkway & Long Canyon Rd 0 0 0 473 0 14 27 30 0 0 5 752 80 Madera Rd & Presidential Dr 0 0 0 22 0 41 21 1,132 0 0 2,744 10 81 Madera Rd & Country Club Dr West 555 0 25 0 0 0 57 1,222 135 49 2,501 0 Final 2030 Post‐processed AM Peak Hour Volumes
# Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 378
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 1 Rocky Peak Fire Rd & SR‐118 WB Ramps 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 422 0 3 2 Rocky Peak Fire Rd & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 0 387 3 420 0 890 1 1 0 0 0 3 Kuehner Dr & Smith Rd 0 622 9 73 418 0 0 0 0 54 0 54
4 Kuehner Dr & Katherine Rd 198 434 11 3 322 111 78 5 97 13 11 6 5 Kuehner Dr & Los Angeles Ave 403 344 0 0 303 848 648 0 397 0 0 0 6 Kuehner Dr & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 472 627 116 881 0 13 0 431 0 0 0 7 Kuehner Dr & SR‐118 WB Ramps 453 41 0 0 57 18 0 0 0 960 0 51 8 Yosemite Ave & Evening Sky Dr 11 141 204 17 106 0 1 0 6 130 2 13 9 Yosemite Ave & Alamo St 248 570 0 0 290 108 182 0 259 0 0 0 10 Yosemite Ave & SR‐118 WB Ramps 0 417 230 0 573 0 0 0 0 488 0 625 11 Yosemite Ave & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 813 0 0 625 205 190 0 325 0 0 0 12 Yosemite Ave & Cochran St 94 639 38 101 666 152 174 60 148 13 35 85 13 Yosemite Ave & Los Angeles Ave 127 140 50 291 193 214 349 1,129 153 100 1,141 213 14 Stow St & Cochran St 91 41 63 19 19 34 49 269 82 47 200 43 15 Stow St & Los Angeles Ave 107 51 37 52 48 68 78 1,794 144 50 1,470 84 16 Stearns St & Alamo St 437 88 96 1 38 39 56 408 417 88 192 6 17 Stearns St & SR‐118 WB Ramps 31 446 244 0 402 156 6 0 79 560 143 319 18 Stearns St & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 1,079 7 27 591 445 79 1 230 11 0 19 19 Stearns St & Cochran St 72 260 161 440 466 157 72 513 48 192 555 276 20 Stearns St & Los Angeles Ave 46 23 3 206 54 340 363 1,554 53 1 1,486 130 21 Los Angeles Ave & Hidden Ranch Dr 237 6 146 56 5 82 69 2,083 133 269 1,715 82 22 Los Angeles Ave & Ralston Ave 0 0 0 16 0 60 75 2,227 0 0 1,876 50 23 Kadota St & Cochran St 0 3 0 15 0 102 67 829 4 0 442 17 24 Kadota St & Alamo St 14 30 26 45 16 33 62 834 47 11 534 86 25 Tapo St & Walnut St 30 164 98 16 122 11 14 37 22 102 39 17 26 Tapo St & Alamo St 191 291 120 72 201 114 162 633 209 112 363 97 27 Tapo St & Cochran St 262 464 256 129 323 124 153 527 166 182 364 96 28 Tapo St & Los Angeles Ave 133 138 205 209 60 391 446 1,608 89 99 1,592 297 29 Tapo Canyon Rd & Royal Ave 131 303 0 86 89 559 758 3 78 5 89 158 30 Tapo Canyon Rd & Los Angeles Ave 53 506 571 213 229 183 270 1,226 12 363 1,185 171 31 Tapo Canyon Rd & Cochran St 118 787 73 517 718 558 471 674 82 98 599 391 32 Tapo Canyon Rd & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 1,765 42 4 1,165 574 573 4 489 0 0 34 33 Tapo Canyon Rd & SR‐118 WB Ramps 84 879 361 0 733 14 22 0 181 474 95 410 34 Tapo Canyon Rd & Alamo St 206 639 401 162 524 171 229 507 260 265 471 119 35 Tapo Canyon Rd & Township Ave 92 518 123 6 318 24 38 71 56 75 87 10 36 Tapo Canyon Rd & Lost Canyons Dr 139 560 0 0 328 39 27 0 168 0 0 0 37 Sequoia Ave & Alamo St 174 183 170 38 131 143 220 803 185 167 678 29 38 Sequoia Ave & Cochran St 207 380 156 122 311 102 144 1,044 277 188 806 165 39 Sequoia Ave & Los Angeles Ave 106 318 76 174 321 292 403 1,389 168 126 1,290 199 40 Sequoia Ave & Royal Ave 69 244 232 31 417 250 217 905 45 350 719 52 41 Cochran St & Galena Ave 84 58 66 190 90 316 273 1,163 94 84 848 132 42 Sycamore Dr & Alamo St 196 759 469 326 882 380 283 487 138 397 534 190 43 Sycamore Dr & SR‐118 WB Ramps 0 944 379 0 1,434 0 0 0 0 765 0 207 44 Sycamore Dr & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 912 52 236 1,075 450 367 110 382 45 2 303 45 Sycamore Dr & Cochran St 160 508 170 527 675 303 274 695 74 347 685 254 46 Sycamore Dr & Los Angeles Ave 68 486 159 263 500 219 297 1,088 38 113 888 246 47 Sycamore Dr & Royal Ave 91 345 196 199 339 154 256 880 133 185 688 111 48 Sycamore Dr & Fitzgerald Rd 0 0 0 272 0 287 211 158 0 0 99 231 49 Erringer Rd & Fitzgerald Rd 22 155 55 96 244 112 89 210 52 85 164 84 50 Erringer Rd & Royal Ave 66 323 37 173 484 310 350 927 83 46 539 141 51 Erringer Rd & Patricia Ave 80 948 72 127 1,021 146 106 13 94 65 23 100 52 Erringer Rd & Los Angeles Ave 290 587 167 172 742 419 328 1,438 295 185 845 38 53 Erringer Rd & Cochran St 150 687 122 193 978 230 329 689 178 211 413 134 54 Erringer Rd & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 1,034 1 4 949 190 222 10 223 4 0 1 55 Erringer Rd & SR‐118 WB Ramps 223 725 207 0 826 478 280 0 275 662 174 177 56 Erringer Rd & Alamo St 19 309 870 132 342 0 0 3 13 817 12 165 57 Los Angeles Ave & Hubbard St 80 4 53 0 0 0 31 2,125 76 77 1,727 13 58 Los Angeles Ave & Patricia Ave 234 66 51 402 66 405 361 1,987 156 98 1,397 333 59 First St & SR‐118 WB Ramps 63 1,208 237 0 1,240 430 20 0 467 1,058 53 216 60 First St & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 2,056 0 0 1,825 456 403 0 284 0 0 0 61 First St & Cochran St 320 1,564 461 114 1,629 297 342 631 369 284 299 97 62 First St & E Easy St 105 1,608 233 415 1,869 127 359 105 212 101 45 501 63 First St & Los Angeles Ave 103 476 352 744 789 751 908 1,394 70 357 1,375 372 64 First St & Royal Ave 247 481 165 383 888 236 328 1,004 261 115 832 295 65 First St & Fitzgerald Rd 0 646 168 290 837 0 0 0 0 177 0 200 66 Sinaloa Rd & Los Angeles Ave 194 16 133 103 25 10 34 1,807 169 294 1,360 70 67 Sinaloa Rd & Royal Ave 111 125 98 99 223 111 145 1,420 183 100 816 148 68 Viewline Dr & SR‐118 WB Ramps 0 0 1,046 0 0 0 0 45 35 515 26 0 69 Madera Rd & Viewline Dr 375 360 0 0 527 160 77 0 988 0 0 0 70 Madera Rd & SR‐118 EB Ramps 0 610 1,955 0 1,104 279 61 0 208 0 0 0 71 Madera Rd & Cochran St 561 1,484 655 145 662 516 790 488 716 400 379 263 72 Madera Rd & Easy St 132 2,036 126 60 1,578 119 458 138 388 250 61 200 73 Madera Rd & Los Angeles Ave/Tierra Rejada Rd 338 1,088 560 429 1,055 318 481 696 321 606 723 113 74 Madera Rd & Royal Ave 14 1,745 1,211 563 1,416 37 26 29 9 635 24 313 75 Tierra Rejada Rd & Stargaze Pl 2 0 34 52 0 12 12 1,538 13 98 1,073 53 76 Madera Rd & Country Club Dr East 15 5 335 13 6 12 24 2,848 25 364 1,927 20 77 Wood Ranch Parkway & Madera Rd 53 15 14 102 5 217 1 2,642 133 356 1,729 16 78 Wood Ranch Parkway & Country Club Dr West 15 196 574 257 128 47 45 278 124 141 196 119 79 Wood Ranch Parkway & Long Canyon Rd 0 0 0 460 0 18 8 10 0 0 13 355 80 Madera Rd & Presidential Dr 0 0 0 29 0 22 85 2,838 0 0 1,922 43 81 Madera Rd & Country Club Dr West 215 0 58 0000 2,283 809 104 1,653 0 Final 2030 Post‐processed PM Peak Hour Volumes
# Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 379
APPENDIX C
HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
380
EXISTING CONDITION
381
Intersection Analysis Summary
Report File: C:\...\E AM.pdf 8/26/2022
Vistro File: C:\...\CVR220002 Base.vistro Scenario 1 E AM 1845 Oak Road
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
SB Thru 0.004 21.2 C
HCM 6th
Edition 3 Shunk Rd/E Los Angeles Ave Two-way stop
NB Left 0.017 15.3 C
HCM 6th
Edition 2 Oak Rd/E Los Angeles Ave Two-way stop
Signalized ICU 1 WB Thru 0.403 - A
Yosemite Ave/E Los Angeles
Ave 1
ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 8/26/2022
Scenario 1: 1 E AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
382
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.403
Level Of Service: A
Delay (sec / veh): -
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: ICU 1
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 1: Yosemite Ave/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Yosemite Avenue Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 45 177 49 156 93 99 161 327 30 60 414 258 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 11 44 12 39 23 25 40 82 8 15 104 65 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 45 177 49 156 93 99 161 327 30 60 414 258 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 45 177 49 156 93 99 161 327 30 60 414 258 Name Yosemite Avenue Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
2 8/26/2022
Scenario 1: 1 E AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
383
Intersection V/C 0.403
Intersection LOS A
V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.19 0.19 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Lead / Lag - - - - - - Lead - - Lead - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 0 8 0 0 4 0 5 2 0 1 6 0
Control Type Split Split Split Split Split Split ProtPer Permiss Permiss ProtPer Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 0.00
Cycle Length [s] 100
Intersection Settings
3 8/26/2022
Scenario 1: 1 E AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
384
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.017
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 15.3
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 2: Oak Rd/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru
Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 6 0 601 1 4 880
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1 0 150 0 1 220
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.8900 0.8900 0.8900 0.8900 0.8900 0.8900 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 5 0 535 1 4 783
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 5 0 535 1 4 783
Name Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
4 8/26/2022
Scenario 1: 1 E AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
385
Intersection LOS C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.08
Approach LOS C A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 15.26 0.00 0.04
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 1.28 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.15 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 Movement LOS C B A A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 15.26 10.31 0.00 0.00 8.67 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0
Flared Lane No
Priority Scheme Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
5 8/26/2022
Scenario 1: 1 E AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
386
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.004
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 21.2
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 3: Shunk Rd/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Shunk Road Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 16 2 3 6 1 114 44 538 24 7 768 14 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 4 1 1 1 0 28 11 134 6 2 192 3 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 14 2 3 5 1 100 39 472 21 6 674 12 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 14 2 3 5 1 100 39 472 21 6 674 12 Name Shunk Road Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
6 8/26/2022
Scenario 1: 1 E AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
387
Intersection LOS C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 1.59
Approach LOS C B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 18.63 13.03 0.69 0.08
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 5.92 5.92 5.92 19.97 19.97 19.97 4.11 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 Movement LOS C C B C C B A A A A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 19.75 21.13 10.99 20.37 21.18 12.57 9.50 0.00 0.00 8.56 0.00 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.19 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0 0
Flared Lane No No
Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
7 8/26/2022
Scenario 1: 1 E AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
388
Intersection Analysis Summary
Report File: C:\...\E PM.pdf 8/26/2022
Vistro File: C:\...\CVR220002 Base.vistro Scenario 2 E PM 1845 Oak Road
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
NB Left 0.081 22.0 C
HCM 6th
Edition 3 Shunk Rd/E Los Angeles Ave Two-way stop
NB Left 0.027 16.0 C
HCM 6th
Edition 2 Oak Rd/E Los Angeles Ave Two-way stop
Signalized ICU 1 WB Thru 0.337 - A
Yosemite Ave/E Los Angeles
Ave 1
ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 8/26/2022
Scenario 2: 2 E PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
389
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.337
Level Of Service: A
Delay (sec / veh): -
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: ICU 1
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 1: Yosemite Ave/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Yosemite Avenue Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 33 101 33 216 131 101 145 399 31 45 355 134 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 8 25 8 54 33 25 36 100 8 11 89 34 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 33 101 33 216 131 101 145 399 31 45 355 134 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 33 101 33 216 131 101 145 399 31 45 355 134 Name Yosemite Avenue Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
2 8/26/2022
Scenario 2: 2 E PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
390
Intersection V/C 0.337
Intersection LOS A
V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.14 0.14 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Lead / Lag - - - - - - Lead - - Lead - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 0 8 0 0 4 0 5 2 0 1 6 0
Control Type Split Split Split Split Split Split ProtPer Permiss Permiss ProtPer Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 0.00
Cycle Length [s] 100
Intersection Settings
3 8/26/2022
Scenario 2: 2 E PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
391
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.027
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 16.0
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 2: Oak Rd/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru
Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 9 7 744 6 7 582
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 2 2 186 2 2 146
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.9720 0.9720 0.9720 0.9720 0.9720 0.9720 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 9 7 723 6 7 566
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 9 7 723 6 7 566
Name Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
4 8/26/2022
Scenario 2: 2 E PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
392
Intersection LOS C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.21
Approach LOS B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 13.81 0.00 0.11
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 2.93 2.93 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.30 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 Movement LOS C B A A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 15.95 11.06 0.00 0.00 9.18 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0
Flared Lane No
Priority Scheme Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
5 8/26/2022
Scenario 2: 2 E PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
393
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.081
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 22.0
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 3: Shunk Rd/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Shunk Road Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 19 5 17 3 4 51 94 642 18 4 526 5 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 5 1 4 1 1 13 24 161 4 1 132 1 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 18 5 16 3 4 49 91 620 17 4 508 5 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 18 5 16 3 4 49 91 620 17 4 508 5 Name Shunk Road Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
6 8/26/2022
Scenario 2: 2 E PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
394
Intersection LOS C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 1.63
Approach LOS C B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 17.82 11.56 1.09 0.07
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 10.83 10.83 10.83 7.89 7.89 7.89 7.38 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Movement LOS C C B C C B A A A A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 21.96 21.93 11.99 17.91 20.32 10.50 8.78 0.00 0.00 8.86 0.00 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0 0
Flared Lane No No
Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
7 8/26/2022
Scenario 2: 2 E PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
395
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
396
Intersection Analysis Summary
Report File: C:\...\EP AM.pdf 6/7/2023
Vistro File: C:\...\CVR220002 Base update 060723.vistro Scenario 3 EP AM 1845 Oak Road
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
NB Thru 0.008 21.4 C
HCM 6th
Edition 3 Shunk Rd/E Los Angeles Ave Two-way stop
NB Left 0.045 15.6 C
HCM 6th
Edition 2 Oak Rd/E Los Angeles Ave Two-way stop
Signalized ICU 1 WB Thru 0.408 - A
Yosemite Ave/E Los Angeles
Ave 1
ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 6/7/2023
Scenario 3: 3 EP AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
397
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.408
Level Of Service: A
Delay (sec / veh): -
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: ICU 1
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 1: Yosemite Ave/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Yosemite Avenue Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 45 177 49 160 93 99 161 327 30 61 415 271 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 11 44 12 40 23 25 40 82 8 15 104 68 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 45 177 49 160 93 99 161 327 30 61 415 271 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 13
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 45 177 49 156 93 99 161 327 30 60 414 258 Name Yosemite Avenue Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
2 6/7/2023
Scenario 3: 3 EP AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
398
Intersection V/C 0.408
Intersection LOS A
V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.19 0.19 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Lead / Lag - - - - - - Lead - - Lead - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 0 8 0 0 4 0 5 2 0 1 6 0
Control Type Split Split Split Split Split Split ProtPer Permiss Permiss ProtPer Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 0.00
Cycle Length [s] 100
Intersection Settings
3 6/7/2023
Scenario 3: 3 EP AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
399
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.045
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 15.6
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 2: Oak Rd/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru
Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 16 3 603 3 6 888
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 4 1 151 1 1 222
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.8900 0.8900 0.8900 0.8900 0.8900 0.8900 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 14 3 537 3 5 790
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 9 3 2 2 1 7
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 5 0 535 1 4 783
Name Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
4 6/7/2023
Scenario 3: 3 EP AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
400
Intersection LOS C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.22
Approach LOS B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 14.80 0.00 0.06
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 3.55 3.55 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.23 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 Movement LOS C B A A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 15.60 10.56 0.00 0.00 8.69 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes
Storage Area [veh] 1 0 0
Flared Lane Yes
Priority Scheme Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
5 6/7/2023
Scenario 3: 3 EP AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
401
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.008
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 21.4
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 3: Shunk Rd/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Shunk Road Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 24 2 7 6 1 114 44 541 26 8 769 14 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 6 1 2 1 0 28 11 135 7 2 192 3 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 21 2 6 5 1 100 39 475 23 7 675 12 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 14 2 3 5 1 100 39 472 21 6 674 12 Name Shunk Road Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
6 6/7/2023
Scenario 3: 3 EP AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
402
Intersection LOS C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 1.68
Approach LOS C B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 18.28 12.60 0.68 0.09
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 8.32 8.32 8.32 16.96 16.96 16.96 4.12 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 Movement LOS C C B C C B A A A A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 20.07 21.45 11.23 20.04 20.85 12.13 9.50 0.00 0.00 8.57 0.00 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.19 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Yes
Storage Area [veh] 1 1 0 0
Flared Lane Yes Yes
Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
7 6/7/2023
Scenario 3: 3 EP AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
403
Intersection Analysis Summary
Report File: C:\...\EP PM.pdf 6/7/2023
Vistro File: C:\...\CVR220002 Base update 060723.vistro Scenario 4 EP PM 1845 Oak Road
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
NB Left 0.100 21.9 C
HCM 6th
Edition 3 Shunk Rd/E Los Angeles Ave Two-way stop
NB Left 0.045 16.2 C
HCM 6th
Edition 2 Oak Rd/E Los Angeles Ave Two-way stop
Signalized ICU 1 WB Thru 0.342 - A
Yosemite Ave/E Los Angeles
Ave 1
ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 6/7/2023
Scenario 4: 4 EP PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
404
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.342
Level Of Service: A
Delay (sec / veh): -
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: ICU 1
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 1: Yosemite Ave/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Yosemite Avenue Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 33 101 34 230 131 101 145 400 31 46 356 141 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 8 25 9 58 33 25 36 100 8 12 89 35 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 33 101 34 230 131 101 145 400 31 46 356 141 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 7
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 33 101 33 216 131 101 145 399 31 45 355 134 Name Yosemite Avenue Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
2 6/7/2023
Scenario 4: 4 EP PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
405
Intersection V/C 0.342
Intersection LOS A
V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.14 0.14 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Lead / Lag - - - - - - Lead - - Lead - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 0 8 0 0 4 0 5 2 0 1 6 0
Control Type Split Split Split Split Split Split ProtPer Permiss Permiss ProtPer Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 0.00
Cycle Length [s] 100
Intersection Settings
3 6/7/2023
Scenario 4: 4 EP PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
406
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.045
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 16.2
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 2: Oak Rd/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru
Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 15 9 752 14 11 586
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 4 2 188 4 3 147
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.9720 0.9720 0.9720 0.9720 0.9720 0.9720 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 15 9 731 14 11 570
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 6 2 8 8 4 4
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 9 7 723 6 7 566
Name Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
4 6/7/2023
Scenario 4: 4 EP PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
407
Intersection LOS C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.32
Approach LOS B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 14.27 0.00 0.17
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 3.54 3.54 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.49 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 Movement LOS C B A A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 16.17 11.12 0.00 0.00 9.26 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes
Storage Area [veh] 1 0 0
Flared Lane Yes
Priority Scheme Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
5 6/7/2023
Scenario 4: 4 EP PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
408
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.100
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 21.9
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 3: Shunk Rd/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Shunk Road Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 23 5 19 3 4 51 94 645 26 8 531 5 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 6 1 5 1 1 13 24 161 6 2 133 1 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 0.9650 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 22 5 18 3 4 49 91 622 25 8 512 5 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 8 4 4 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 18 5 16 3 4 49 91 620 17 4 508 5 Name Shunk Road Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
6 6/7/2023
Scenario 4: 4 EP PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
409
Intersection LOS C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 1.69
Approach LOS C B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 17.76 11.31 1.08 0.13
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 10.26 10.26 10.26 5.57 5.57 5.57 7.42 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 Movement LOS C C B C C B A A A A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 21.88 21.86 11.68 17.87 20.39 10.21 8.80 0.00 0.00 8.91 0.00 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Yes
Storage Area [veh] 1 1 0 0
Flared Lane Yes Yes
Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
7 6/7/2023
Scenario 4: 4 EP PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
410
CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC WITHOUT PROJECT
411
Intersection Analysis Summary
Report File: C:\...\EAC AM.pdf 8/31/2022
Vistro File: C:\...\CVR220002 Base update.vistro Scenario 5 EAC AM 1845 Oak Road
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
SB Thru 0.005 24.8 C
HCM 6th
Edition 3 Shunk Rd/E Los Angeles Ave Two-way stop
NB Left 0.018 18.1 C
HCM 6th
Edition 2 Oak Rd/E Los Angeles Ave Two-way stop
Signalized ICU 1 WB Thru 0.457 - A
Yosemite Ave/E Los Angeles
Ave 1
ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 8/31/2022
Scenario 5: 5 EAC AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
412
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.457
Level Of Service: A
Delay (sec / veh): -
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: ICU 1
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 1: Yosemite Ave/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.21 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Yosemite Avenue Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 141 306 93 288 116 139 157 437 63 70 551 302 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 35 77 23 72 29 35 39 109 16 18 138 76 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 141 306 93 288 116 139 157 437 63 70 551 302 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 141 306 93 288 116 139 157 437 63 70 551 302 Name Yosemite Avenue Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
2 8/31/2022
Scenario 5: 5 EAC AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
413
Intersection V/C 0.457
Intersection LOS A
V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.16 0.16 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Lead / Lag - - - - - - Lead - - Lead - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 0 8 0 0 4 0 5 2 0 1 6 0
Control Type Split Split Split Split Split Split ProtPer Permiss Permiss ProtPer Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 0.00
Cycle Length [s] 100
Intersection Settings
3 8/31/2022
Scenario 5: 5 EAC AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
414
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.018
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 18.1
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 2: Oak Rd/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru
Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 5 0 817 1 4 918
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1 0 204 0 1 230
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 5 0 817 1 4 918
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 5 0 817 1 4 918
Name Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
4 8/31/2022
Scenario 5: 5 EAC AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
415
Intersection LOS C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.08
Approach LOS C A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 18.14 0.00 0.05
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 1.37 1.37 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.21 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 Movement LOS C B A A B A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 18.14 12.29 0.00 0.00 12.48 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0
Flared Lane No
Priority Scheme Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
5 8/31/2022
Scenario 5: 5 EAC AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
416
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.005
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 24.8
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 3: Shunk Rd/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Shunk Road Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 14 2 3 5 1 100 39 757 21 6 808 12 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 4 1 1 1 0 25 10 189 5 2 202 3 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 14 2 3 5 1 100 39 757 21 6 808 12 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 14 2 3 5 1 100 39 757 21 6 808 12 Name Shunk Road Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
6 8/31/2022
Scenario 5: 5 EAC AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
417
Intersection LOS C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 1.46
Approach LOS C B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 22.91 14.76 0.62 0.09
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 7.01 7.01 7.01 21.20 21.20 21.20 6.54 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 Movement LOS C C B C C B B A A B A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 24.69 24.71 13.40 23.18 24.79 14.24 13.09 0.00 0.00 12.19 0.00 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.20 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0 0
Flared Lane No No
Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
7 8/31/2022
Scenario 5: 5 EAC AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
418
Intersection Analysis Summary
Report File: C:\...\EAC PM.pdf 8/31/2022
Vistro File: C:\...\CVR220002 Base update.vistro Scenario 6 EAC PM 1845 Oak Road
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
NB Left 0.382 124.3 F
HCM 6th
Edition 3 Shunk Rd/E Los Angeles Ave Two-way stop
NB Left 0.068 34.3 D
HCM 6th
Edition 2 Oak Rd/E Los Angeles Ave Two-way stop
Signalized ICU 1 WB Thru 0.644 - B
Yosemite Ave/E Los Angeles
Ave 1
ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 8/31/2022
Scenario 6: 6 EAC PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
419
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.644
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): -
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: ICU 1
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 1: Yosemite Ave/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.21 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Yosemite Avenue Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 127 140 50 291 193 214 349 1129 153 100 1141 213 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 32 35 13 73 48 54 87 282 38 25 285 53 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 127 140 50 291 193 214 349 1129 153 100 1141 213 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 127 140 50 291 193 214 349 1129 153 100 1141 213 Name Yosemite Avenue Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
2 8/31/2022
Scenario 6: 6 EAC PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
420
Intersection V/C 0.644
Intersection LOS B
V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.25 0.25 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Lead / Lag - - - - - - Lead - - Lead - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 0 8 0 0 4 0 5 2 0 1 6 0
Control Type Split Split Split Split Split Split ProtPer Permiss Permiss ProtPer Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 0.00
Cycle Length [s] 100
Intersection Settings
3 8/31/2022
Scenario 6: 6 EAC PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
421
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.068
Level Of Service: D
Delay (sec / veh): 34.3
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 2: Oak Rd/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru
Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 9 7 1464 6 7 1445
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 2 2 366 2 2 361
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 9 7 1464 6 7 1445
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 9 7 1464 6 7 1445
Name Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
4 8/31/2022
Scenario 6: 6 EAC PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
422
Intersection LOS D
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.20
Approach LOS D A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 27.39 0.00 0.10
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 7.36 7.36 0.00 0.00 2.29 0.76 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.03 Movement LOS D C A A C A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 34.33 18.48 0.00 0.00 20.78 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.01
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0
Flared Lane No
Priority Scheme Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
5 8/31/2022
Scenario 6: 6 EAC PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
423
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.382
Level Of Service: F
Delay (sec / veh): 124.3
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 3: Shunk Rd/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Shunk Road Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 18 5 16 3 4 49 91 1363 17 4 1385 5 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 5 1 4 1 1 12 23 341 4 1 346 1 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 18 5 16 3 4 49 91 1363 17 4 1385 5 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 18 5 16 3 4 49 91 1363 17 4 1385 5 Name Shunk Road Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
6 8/31/2022
Scenario 6: 6 EAC PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
424
Intersection LOS F
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 2.58
Approach LOS F D A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 95.73 25.58 1.64 0.05
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 54.46 54.46 54.46 23.12 23.12 23.12 38.22 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 2.18 2.18 2.18 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 Movement LOS F F F F F C D A A C A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 124.33 111.53 58.62 55.82 62.21 20.74 26.45 0.00 0.00 19.05 0.00 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.38 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.15 0.35 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0 0
Flared Lane No No
Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
7 8/31/2022
Scenario 6: 6 EAC PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-0) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
425
CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT
426
Intersection Analysis Summary
Report File: C:\...\EACP AM.pdf 6/7/2023
Vistro File: C:\...\CVR220002 Base update 060723.vistro Scenario 7 EACP AM 1845 Oak Road
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
NB Thru 0.010 25.6 D
HCM 6th
Edition 3 Shunk Rd/E Los Angeles Ave Two-way stop
NB Left 0.050 18.7 C
HCM 6th
Edition 2 Oak Rd/E Los Angeles Ave Two-way stop
Signalized ICU 1 WB Thru 0.460 - A
Yosemite Ave/E Los Angeles
Ave 1
ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 6/7/2023
Scenario 7: 7 EACP AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
427
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.460
Level Of Service: A
Delay (sec / veh): -
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: ICU 1
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 1: Yosemite Ave/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.21 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Yosemite Avenue Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 141 306 93 292 116 139 157 437 63 71 552 315 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 35 77 23 73 29 35 39 109 16 18 138 79 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 141 306 93 292 116 139 157 437 63 71 552 315 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 13
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 141 306 93 288 116 139 157 437 63 70 551 302 Name Yosemite Avenue Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
2 6/7/2023
Scenario 7: 7 EACP AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
428
Intersection V/C 0.460
Intersection LOS A
V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.16 0.16 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Lead / Lag - - - - - - Lead - - Lead - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 0 8 0 0 4 0 5 2 0 1 6 0
Control Type Split Split Split Split Split Split ProtPer Permiss Permiss ProtPer Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 0.00
Cycle Length [s] 100
Intersection Settings
3 6/7/2023
Scenario 7: 7 EACP AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
429
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.050
Level Of Service: C
Delay (sec / veh): 18.7
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 2: Oak Rd/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru
Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 14 3 819 3 5 925
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 4 1 205 1 1 231
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 14 3 819 3 5 925
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 9 3 2 2 1 7
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 5 0 817 1 4 918
Name Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
4 6/7/2023
Scenario 7: 7 EACP AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
430
Intersection LOS C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.21
Approach LOS C A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 17.66 0.00 0.07
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 4.46 4.46 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.26 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 Movement LOS C B A A B A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 18.70 12.79 0.00 0.00 12.53 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0
Flared Lane No
Priority Scheme Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
5 6/7/2023
Scenario 7: 7 EACP AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
431
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.010
Level Of Service: D
Delay (sec / veh): 25.6
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 3: Shunk Rd/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Shunk Road Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 21 2 6 5 1 100 39 760 23 7 809 12 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 5 1 2 1 0 25 10 190 6 2 202 3 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 21 2 6 5 1 100 39 760 23 7 809 12 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 14 2 3 5 1 100 39 757 21 6 808 12 Name Shunk Road Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
6 6/7/2023
Scenario 7: 7 EACP AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
432
Intersection LOS D
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 1.59
Approach LOS C B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 23.25 14.78 0.62 0.10
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 10.84 10.84 10.84 21.24 21.24 21.24 6.55 0.00 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 Movement LOS D D B C C B B A A B A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 25.61 25.61 14.21 23.32 24.94 14.25 13.10 0.00 0.00 12.24 0.00 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.20 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0 0
Flared Lane No No
Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
7 6/7/2023
Scenario 7: 7 EACP AM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
433
Intersection Analysis Summary
Report File: C:\...\EACP PM.pdf 6/7/2023
Vistro File: C:\...\CVR220002 Base update 060723.vistro Scenario 8 EACP PM 1845 Oak Road
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
NB Left 0.474 142.5 F
HCM 6th
Edition 3 Shunk Rd/E Los Angeles Ave Two-way stop
NB Left 0.112 35.2 E
HCM 6th
Edition 2 Oak Rd/E Los Angeles Ave Two-way stop
Signalized ICU 1 WB Thru 0.649 - B
Yosemite Ave/E Los Angeles
Ave 1
ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 6/7/2023
Scenario 8: 8 EACP PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
434
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.649
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): -
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: ICU 1
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 1: Yosemite Ave/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.21 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Yosemite Avenue Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 127 140 51 305 193 214 349 1130 153 101 1142 220 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 32 35 13 76 48 54 87 283 38 25 286 55 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 127 140 51 305 193 214 349 1130 153 101 1142 220 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 7
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 127 140 50 291 193 214 349 1129 153 100 1141 213 Name Yosemite Avenue Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
2 6/7/2023
Scenario 8: 8 EACP PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
435
Intersection V/C 0.649
Intersection LOS B
V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.25 0.25 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Lead / Lag - - - - - - Lead - - Lead - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 0 8 0 0 4 0 5 2 0 1 6 0
Control Type Split Split Split Split Split Split ProtPer Permiss Permiss ProtPer Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 0.00
Cycle Length [s] 100
Intersection Settings
3 6/7/2023
Scenario 8: 8 EACP PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
436
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.112
Level Of Service: E
Delay (sec / veh): 35.2
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 2: Oak Rd/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru
Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 15 9 1472 14 11 1449
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 4 2 368 4 3 362
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 15 9 1472 14 11 1449
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 6 2 8 8 4 4
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 9 7 1464 6 7 1445
Name Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
4 6/7/2023
Scenario 8: 8 EACP PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
437
Intersection LOS E
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.32
Approach LOS D A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 29.49 0.00 0.16
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 11.95 11.95 0.00 0.00 3.73 1.24 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.05 Movement LOS E C A A C A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 35.18 20.01 0.00 0.00 21.37 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.11 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.01
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0
Flared Lane No
Priority Scheme Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
5 6/7/2023
Scenario 8: 8 EACP PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
438
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.474
Level Of Service: F
Delay (sec / veh): 142.5
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 3: Shunk Rd/E Los Angeles Ave
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Shunk Road Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 22 5 18 3 4 49 91 1365 25 8 1389 5 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 6 1 5 1 1 12 23 341 6 2 347 1 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 22 5 18 3 4 49 91 1365 25 8 1389 5 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 8 4 4 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 18 5 16 3 4 49 91 1363 17 4 1385 5 Name Shunk Road Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Volumes
6 6/7/2023
Scenario 8: 8 EACP PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
439
Intersection LOS F
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 3.08
Approach LOS F D A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 114.41 26.09 1.63 0.11
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 68.24 68.24 68.24 23.64 23.64 23.64 38.45 0.00 0.00 2.40 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 2.73 2.73 2.73 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.54 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 Movement LOS F F F F F C D A A C A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 142.48 130.56 75.63 57.68 64.84 20.99 26.60 0.00 0.00 19.44 0.00 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.47 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.15 0.36 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0 0
Flared Lane No No
Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
7 6/7/2023
Scenario 8: 8 EACP PM
1845 Oak Road
Version 2022 (SP 0-11) TJW Engineering, Inc.
Generated with
440
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150 ǀ Irvine, California 92612 August 26, 2024
Elizabeth Richardson
City of Simi Valley Environmental Service Department
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, California 93063
RE: Density Bonus Letter for proposed residential project located at 1845 Oak Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063
Dear Ms. Richardson,
City Ventures (Applicant) has submitted a formal design review application to the City of Simi Valley (City) for a proposed development project of 70 for sale, residential townhomes. Pursuant to Government Code §65915, City Ventures intends to implement State Density Bonus Law for the 1845 Oak Road project by proposing affordable units in exchange for Development Code Concessions and Waivers and City Ventures will not be requesting additional density. As mentioned above, this project consists of 70 residential units and meets the requirements of subdivision (b) of §65915 in that it proposes a common interest development wherein all units are for-sale and in which fourteen percent of the total dwelling units (10- 1 bedroom units) will be deed restricted for person(s) of moderate income, as prescribed by section (D) of that section.
For new development projects offering units at moderate income level, Density Bonus Law under Gov.
Code §65915 allows the following:
• Nine percent density bonus (subd. (f)(4)),
• One incentive/concession (id., subd. (d)(D),
• Unlimited waivers (id., subd. (e)),
• Density Bonus Law (“DBL”) parking standards (id., subd. (p)).
Density Bonus Law Parking Standards (id., subd. (p)) allows the following:
EXHIBIT 1 441