Staff Report — Simi Valley City Council, October 7, 2024 (part 3 of 3)

• Under DBL parking standards, the project needs 130 onsite parking spaces ((2.5 x 30) + (1.5 x 30) + (1 x 10)), “inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests.” • This project provides sufficient parking by exceeding DBL parking standards. The project provides 168 parking spaces.

The project as proposed is seeking the following waivers:

Requested Waiver Units Lost If Project Complied With Code

1. A waiver to building setbacks from property
line shown in (SVMC 9-24.050 (A)(B)(C)(D) Table
2-3).
- Front yard setback from 20’ to 18.5’
1 unit

2. A waiver to building setbacks from property
line shown in (SVMC 9-24.050 (A)(B)(C)(D) Table
2-3).
- Interior side yard setback from 15’ to 10’
9 units (waiver #2 is an alternative to waiver #3;
the lost units would not overlap)

3. A waiver to building setbacks from property
line shown in (SVMC 9-24.050 (A)(B)(C)(D) Table
2-3).
- Rear yard setback from 20’ to 10’
5 units (waiver #3 is an alternative to waiver #2;
the lost units would not overlap)

4. A waiver to setback between buildings shown
in SVMC 9-30.080 (B)(2)
Between building setback from 20’ to 15’
1 unit (same lost unit as waiver #1)

5. A waiver to the garage width standards shown
in SVMC 9-34.080 (D)
- Garage dimensions from 12’x20’ to
10’10”x20’
1 unit

6. A waiver to the landscape
requirements/enriched parkway standards
- Required 17.5’ wide landscape strip along
the front property line. The maximum
amount of landscape along the front
property line is 6.5’.
1 unit (same lost unit as waiver #1)

7. A waiver to decrease the additional front yard
setback for buildings over 15’ from 45’ to 20’
shown in SVMC 9-24.050
1-2 units (same lost unit as waiver #1)
Total Units Lost if Project Complied With Code 7-11 units The Applicant is requesting the City make findings consistent with the waivers that are being requested to maintain the density as proposed and designed. These waivers will substantially improve the livability of the homes, meet or exceed the City’s aesthetic criteria, and be consistent with the requirements of Government Code §65915.

Under Government Code §65915, id., subd. (d)(4), the City shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive.
442

Page 3 of 3 ends

Per Housing Community Development (HCD), no justification for a waiver is needed other than a statement that application of the development standard would preclude construction of the project as designed at the density proposed and the burden of proof would fall on the City to justify any objections. (see https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sdiencinitas-nov012022.pdf; Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775; Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346–1347.) City Venturesis not requesting any concessions at this time but reserves the right to request a concession/incentive or additional waivers throughout the design review process as may be needed to preserve proposed density and integrity of design.

City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
Eric Miller
Director of Development
Direct: (909)996-8585
Email: [email protected]
443
EXHIBIT 2
Planning Commission Package
GPA-2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003/PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-
0001/AHA-2022- 0002
August 21, 2024
INDEX
Resolution No. SVPC 09-2024
*Legal Description, Land Use Map Exhibit, Zoning Map Exhibit, Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been removed from this Exhibit to avoid duplication.

August 21, 2024 Draft Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report
**The public hearing procedure, draft resolution, Exhibit A-G, and Exhibit 6 and 7 have been removed to avoid duplication.

August 21, 2024 Supplemental Staff Reports
444
19 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) RESOLUTION NO. SVPC 09-2024

A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY

COUNCIL APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
(GPA-2022-0001), ZONE CHANGE (Z-S-2022-0003),
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (PD-S-2022-0012)
AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (VTT-2024-0001) TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 70-UNIT, THREE

STORY, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1845 OAK ROAD; AND

ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Factual Findings and Conclusions. The Planning Commission finds as follows:

A. On September 20, 2022, City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC (the “Applicant”) filed an application seeking a General Plan Amendment (GPA-2022-0001), Zone Change (Z-S-2022-0003), Planned Development Permit (PD-S-2022-0012) and Vesting Tentative Map for a 3.61-acre site located at 1845 Oak Road designated as Ventura County Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 637-0-140-120, 637-0-140-430, 637-0- 140-445, and 637-0-140-730 and by the legal description attached as Exhibit A, and incorporated by reference, to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from General Commercial and Medium Density Residential (3.6-5.0 du/acre) to High Density Residential (10.1-20 du/acre); to amend the Zoning Map from Commercial Planned Development (CPD) and Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential High Density (RH) to construct a 70-unit, three story, multi-family residential condominium complex (collectively, the “project”);
B. The application was prepared and reviewed by the Environmental Services Director, or designee (collectively, the “Director”) for, in part, consistency with the General Plan;
C. The City reviewed the project’s environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”), and the City’s Environmental Guidelines.

D. The Director completed the review and scheduled the public hearing regarding the application before the Planning Commission for August 21, 2024; E. On August 21, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed project, including, without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and public testimony; and
445
RES. NO SVPC 09-2024
20 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) F. The Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence presented to the Commission at its August 21, 2024, hearing including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Director.

SECTION 2: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Planned Development Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map findings. Pursuant to Exhibit H, the Planning Commission makes the following findings:

A. The proposed General Plan Amendment will allow development consistent with the surrounding Moderate and High Density land uses. The proposed development will be similar to the adjacent multi-family residential apartment building, mobile home park and high density residential subdivision. The development will be served by sewer, water, utilities, police and Ventura County Fire Protection District services and is required to comply with all conditions of approval requiring these services in accordance with the Simi Valley Municipal Code and State law.

Additionally, the Permittee is required to prepare a Maintenance Agreement which will include requirements for the continual maintenance, repair, and replacement of project facilities.

B. The proposed Land Use designation of the subject property is High Density Residential (10.1-20 du/acre). The purpose of this land use is to encourage a residential environment typified by higher density townhouses, two- to three- story apartments, and other, multiple unit developments. This designation is intended for use in the more central areas near shopping, near transit, and on arterial or collector streets. This intent is met in that East Los Angeles Avenue is a mix of High Density Residential Zone combined with Commercial zoning and contains transit and shopping services. The project is also consistent with the following General Plan Policies:

1. Policy LU 2.1: The project provides 10 one-bedroom, 30 three-bedroom and 30 four-bedroom units. The 10 affordable units will provide home-ownership opportunities to moderate-income households for a 55-year term to address the regional housing needs. The overall project density of 19.4 units per acre will benefit nearby commercial uses along East Los Angeles Avenue, which is within immediate walking distance, and also adjacent to public transit.

2. Policy HE-1.1: The overall density is 19.4 units per acre. The three-story townhomes are located adjacent to approved high-density residential and existing commercial uses. Ten of the 70 units are proposed to be set aside for affordable ownership residents at the moderate income categories.

3. Policy LU 15.2: The 70-unit condominium project provides outdoor tot-lot and barbeque and picnic space.

C. The project complies with the Simi Valley Municipal Code (“SVMC”) in that a multifamily condominium complex is a permitted use within the RH zone subject to approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Planned Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map, per SVMC Chapter 9-24. The project is consistent with the SVMC’s setbacks, maximum building height, maximum number 446
RES. NO SVPC 09-2024
21 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) of stories, minimum off-street parking and landscaping standards, with its requested waivers that permit deviation from the SVMC standards. (1) The residential component of the project also meets the requirements contained in SVMC § 9-24.060, in that the proposed project meets the mandatory Standards and seven Optional Standards in SVMC § 9-24.060(B) and § 9-24.060 (D).
(2) The proposed project qualifies for the parking requirements in Government Code § 65951.

D. The project is consistent with the following City adopted Design Guidelines as follows:

1. Multi-Family Residential Guidelines 4c: The building design utilizes horizontal and vertical articulation with varying roof heights and pitches, and modulation of the building walls and the use of projecting balconies. Therefore, the project is consistent with this finding.

2. Multi-Family Residential Guidelines 4c: Placing the tot-lot at the western edge of the site and barbeque, picnic table, and active lawn area in the center of the complex, access to the outdoor space is easily provided to residents from outdoor walkways and interior driveways. Therefore, the project is consistent with this finding.

E. The construction of the proposed condominium complex is required to meet all standards of the California Building Standards Code, as adopted by the SVMC, and has provided for project grading, drainage, and water. Therefore, the public health, safety, and welfare are being protected with implementation of these conditions.

F. The Zone Change facilitates the rezoning of the 3.61 acre site to Residential High Density to accommodate the development of 70-unit condominium complex. The new condominium units provide new housing opportunities for residents in the City.

The development will not create a significant effect on fiscal resources as the applicant will construct required infrastructure improvements as conditioned by the City. The applicant is also responsible for payment of fees to offset effects upon schools and parks. Therefore, the Zone Change complies with the City’s housing needs and balances with the public service needs and environmental and fiscal resources.

G. The project site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of development in that the 70-unit condominium complex is a high density development surrounded by high density apartments, mobile home park and residential subdivisions of a similar density. Access to the site will be on Oak Road and Shunk Road off East Los Angeles Avenue and will have internal driveways to access each unit’s individual garage and on-street parking. Therefore, the site is physically suitable for development of this project.
447
RES. NO SVPC 09-2024
22 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) H. The wastewater treatment would be provided by the Simi Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant which treats about 10 million gallons per day (MGD). Based on standard usage factors based on land use, the Project is expected to generate approximately 19,250 gallons of sewage per day. This would be 0.2% of the daily sewage handled by the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. Therefore, constructing the condominium complex would not result in a violation of the California Water Code.

I. The proposed trees depicted on the conceptual landscape plan will provide shade for natural cooling of buildings and paved areas during the summer months and deciduous trees with less foliage will provide sunlight access for natural solar heating of buildings during the winter months. Additionally, each dwelling unit will contain windows that can be opened to allow passive cooling by natural breezes; thus minimizing the need for air conditioning during the summer months.

Therefore, the design provides natural heating and cooling opportunities.

J. Based on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), the project would not have a potential for significant effect on the environment. By enforcing the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”), the project is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially or unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

K. The development will be served by sewer, water, utility, police and Ventura County Fire Protection District services, and the project is required to comply with all conditions of approval requiring the provision of these services in accordance with applicable law. Additionally, the applicant is required to prepare a maintenance agreement, which will include provisions for the continual maintenance, repair and replacement of project facilities (PD Condition B-11). Therefore, the subdivision design will not cause serious public health problems.

L. The existing ingress and egress easements and public utility easements are located in the existing driveway that will be utilized for the proposed development, as identified on the Vesting Tentative Map will not be impacted by any proposed structures. In addition, the easements do not prohibit development of the project or other types of development permitted on the property. Therefore, the subdivision design will not conflict with any existing easements.

SECTION 3: Environmental Assessment. Because of the facts set forth in Section 1, the Director complete an Initial Study for GPA-2022-0001, Z-S-2022-0003, PD-S-2022-0012 and VTT-2024-0001. Thereafter, the Director prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Exhibit G) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15063, which is incorporated by reference. The MND and MMRP are adopted and the Director is authorized to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15075 and any other applicable law.

SECTION 4: Recommendation to City Council. Subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit “D” – Vesting Tentative Map conditions and Exhibit “E” – Planned Development Permit conditions,” which are incorporated by reference (the “COA”), the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 448
RES. NO SVPC 09-2024
(GPA-2022-0001) set forth in Exhibit "B"; Zone Change (Z-S-2022-0003) set forth in attached Exhibit "C"; and Mitigation Monitoring Plan set forth in attached Exhibit "G"; Planned Development Permit (PD-S-2022-00012); and Vesting Tentative Map (VTT2024-0001 ).

SECTION 5: Delegation of Authority. The Director is authorized to make clerical corrections; minor technical changes; and other non-substantive edits to the COA, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to ensure the PD is property implemented. Unless substantive changes are required, no additional Planning Commission action is required to ratify such changes.

SECTION 6: Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determination in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

SECTION 7: Limitations. The Planning Commission's analysis and evaluation of the project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the Planning Commission's lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues.

The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 8: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent resolution.

SECTION 9: The Commission secretary is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to any person requesting a copy.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 21
st day of August 2024.

Attest:llb rn. ~
Mega\, Grai
Recording Secretary
Allan C. Mann, Chairperson
Planning Commission
Approved as to Form:

ALGERIA R. FORD, City Atto
Brian I. Hamblet
Senior Assistant City Attorney
Ap~s to Content:.

Sea
.
n Gibson
-vJiJ.w
Deputy Environmental Services Director/
City Planner
23 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) 449
RES. NO SVPC 09-2024
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution as duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley, California, at a regular meeting held on August 21, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Commissioners Kennedy, Rice, and Tolson;
Chairperson Mann
None
None
Vice Chairperson Mayer
ATTEST:

Megan Grai
Recording Secretary
24 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) 450

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION

MOBILE HOME RENT MEDIATION BOARD

TREE ADVISORY BOARD
City Council Chamber August 21, 2024
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063

1. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley was called to order at 6:38 p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners Kennedy, Rice, and Tolson; Chairperson Mann

Absent: Vice Chairperson Mayer

4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the agenda as submitted.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – July 24, 2024
It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the minutes as submitted.

6. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT – None

7. PUBLIC STATEMENTS – None

8. CORRESPONDENCE
Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson stated three supplemental staff reports were provided for agenda item 11.A.1. Copies were provided at the dais as well as in the lobby for the public.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR – None

10. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
451
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 2 August 21, 2024

1. CUP-S-2023-0004; Walter Postelwait: To consider a Conditional Use Permit (CUP-S-2023-0004) to construct a 66,431 square-foot industrial tilt-up building on a 7.67-acre vacant site for warehousing and manufacturing of bakery ingredients and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration; located at 615 West Los Angeles Avenue.

Staff Contact: Alexandra Clingman
(805) 583-6772

COMMISSIONER TOLSON RECOMMENDED THAT

THE PLANNING COMMISSION MOVE TO
CONTINUE CUP-S-2023-0004 TO A DATE

UNCERTAIN
Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion.

AYES: Commissioners Kennedy, Rice, and
Tolson; and Chairperson Mann
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Vice Chairperson Mayer

2. CUP-S-2023-0013; Dunn Simi LP: To consider a Conditional Use Permit (CUP-S-2023-0013) to demolish an existing office building and construct a 179,490-square foot warehouse building; and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Subject Application; located at 4100 Guardian Street.

Staff Contact: Zarui Chaparyan
(805) 583-6774
There were no ex parte communications to report.

Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson gave a brief overview of the project. This project was continued from the August 7, 2024 Planning Commission meeting.

Associate Planner Zarui Chaparyan gave a presentation of the staff report.

Chairperson Mann asked staff about the age of the current building. It was stated it was approved in 1997.
452
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 3 August 21, 2024
Chairperson Mann opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.

The Applicant, Matt Herrill, and the project architect, Jaime Cruz, gave a brief presentation about the project.

Commissioner Tolson inquired if an occupant is already scheduled to occupy a unit to which the applicant stated no.

Chairperson Mann closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.

Commissioner Rice commented he was happy that a majority of the large beautiful trees on site would remain. He likes the architecture of the building and likes the project.

Commissioner Tolson stated he likes the project and sees the need in the area for the new building.

Chairperson Mann echoed the previous comments that this is a great project.

Commissioner Kennedy asked the timeline for the project after an approval. The applicant Mr. Herrill stated they are ready to start the permit process assuming they receive an approval tonight and start first quarter next year. At the end of this year, the current building will be vacated.

COMMISSIONER RICE MOVED THAT THE

PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI

VALLEY ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP-S-2023-0013),

AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 179,490-SQUARE FOOT
WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON A 10.3 ACRE SITE
Commissioner Tolson seconded the motion.

AYES: Commissioners Kennedy, Rice, and
Tolson; and Chairperson Mann
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Vice Chairperson Mayer
The appeal period for CUP-S-2023-0013 is 14
calendar days.
453
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 4 August 21, 2024
B. OTHER – None

11. NEW BUSINESS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. GPA-2022-0001, Z-S-2022-0003, PD-S-2022-0012, VTT-2022- 0003, AHA-2022-0002; City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC: To consider a Planned Development Permit, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Vesting Tentative Map, to change the General Plan Land Use designation from General Commercial and Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, change the Zoning designation from Commercial Planned Development (CPD) and Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential High Density (RH), in order to construct a new 70-unit, 3-story multi-family residential condominium development with an Affordable Housing Agreement and development incentives; and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan; located at 1845 Oak Road.

Staff Contact: Elizabeth Richardson
(805) 583-6334
The following ex parte communications were stated. Commissioner Tolson, Commissioner Kennedy, and Chairperson Mann all spoke with the applicant.

Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson gave a brief overview of the project.

Senior Planner Elizabeth Richardson and Deputy Public Works Director (Development Services) Brent Siemer gave a presentation of the staff report.

Commissioner Tolson asked staff regarding the houses to the south of this project.

Mr. Gibson stated an incomplete application is on file for the southern location. Mr.

Tolson asked if any other properties in town have this proposed pump system. Mr.

Siemer stated after some research, an apartment complex near Cochran Street and Stearns Street has a similar drainage system as an emergency discharge system. The apartment complex had a pre-existing drainage pattern.

Commissioner Kennedy asked if the applicant provided the City any engineering or flow rates of an existing pumping system as he did not see anything provided.

The applicant did provide a drainage study, but the City did not receive any documentation on the type of pump system.

Chairperson Mann asked if the project includes an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA). Senior Planner Elizabeth Richardson stated the project is not subject to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) because a General Plan amendment and a Zone Change are attached to the project. However, because the project is supplying ten 454
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 5 August 21, 2024
affordable units, they are eligible for a Density Bonus, and concessions and waivers including the reduced setbacks. Mr. Mann inquired about the reduced garage dimensions. Ms. Richardson stated the reduced garage dimensions is only for the one-car garages, of which there are ten. Mr. Mann asked if the applicant is limited to the number of waivers allowed. Ms. Richardson responded that unlimited waivers are allowed.

Commissioner Rice inquired about the neighboring oak tree and the associated drip line that would possibly be affected. Ms. Richardson stated she talked to the consulting arborist who works for the City. The consultant stated there would be limited impacts to the oak tree.

Chairperson Mann, regarding condition B-20, asked about the road described.

Senior Planner Elizabeth Richardson stated a response was given updating the condition to state the road is to be constructed to the southerly property line.

Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson followed up that the initial staff report had a typo and a supplemental was created to clarify that the required road improvement is between East Los Angeles Road and the southerly property line. Commissioner Kennedy followed up and asked if the Oak Road width is in anticipation of development on the property to the south. Public Works Principal Traffic Engineer, Justin Link clarified 30 feet is the requirement for Public Works and 25 feet is the requirement for the Fire Department. Chairperson Mann asked what the current width of the road is. Mr. Link responded he believes it is currently 15 feet wide within a 20-foot easement. Mr. Kennedy inquired about the utility poles near the roadway to which Mr. Link responded would be the responsibility of the project to the south. Mr. Rice asked if the utility poles could be undergrounded. Mr. Gibson stated there is an ordinance that on-site utilities must be undergrounded unless a waiver is requested.

Chairperson Mann inquired if the project to the south has been presented to Planning Commission previously. Mr. Gibson stated a general prescreening was presented to City Council where the project may have been viewed.

Commissioner Kennedy asked for clarification on the status of the project to the south. Mr. Gibson stated the project is currently deemed incomplete and the applicant is working with the City and hoping to resubmit. Mr. Kennedy inquired about the length of the process for the southern property’s application. Mr. Gibson stated the process has been a little over a year so far.

Chairperson Mann opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.

The Applicant, Eric Miller, gave a brief presentation about the project.

Commissioner Rice asked the applicant what emergency power source would power the drainage pump system or has the applicant not decided yet. Mr. Miller stated there are multiple options like a battery source, a diesel or electric generator. Mr. Rice stated that the project area has had many power outages recently that last from a few hours to days. Mr. Miller responded that in a slim 455
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 6 August 21, 2024
chance of a power outage and the pump system fails, the overall project will still improve the southwest corner of the development area.

Commissioner Kennedy asked if the timing on which property, north or south, submitted first, does the second property have to mitigate the water issue. The applicant Eric Miller stated they will install a storm drain stub which will allow for future connections if a condition wants to be added to future developers to use the stub.

Commissioner Tolson and Chairperson Mann inquired if a solar battery backup will be installed for all units. Mr. Miller stated no backup will be provided. Mr. Mann asked if solar will be used for the common area lighting or facilities. Mr. Miller stated no, all common areas powered by standard electricity.

Commissioner Kennedy asked if the project would be continued, how it would affect the project. Mr. Miller stated it would be affected.

Chairperson Mann asked if the applicant exhausted all drainage options. Mr. Miller stated he looked at other options. The only other option would be to raise the southwest corner about eight feet higher but that would cost more money.

Commissioner Tolson inquired about the price for the one-bedroom units. Eric Miller stated if they were to be sold soon, potentially around $350,000.

Gary Seaton submitted a speaker card in support of the project but did not wish to speak.

Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson stated although the applicant is asking for concessions and waivers, there are options open to the Planning Commission to negotiate with the applicant in regards to aesthetics. In regards to the pumping system, staff was not aware of the backup generator system and therefore it has not been reviewed. With some generators, a noise study and an environmental impact report may be required.

Commissioner Kennedy asked if the City has a set of parameters that would be required by the applicant. Deputy Public Works Director (Development Services) Brent Siemer stated since nothing has been submitted by the applicant for the pumping system, there are many unknowns that need to be looked at in regards to the flowrate, placement on site and under the roadway, the structure needed, and where to locate the backup power. The City has never used a stormwater drainage system like this previously, therefore there is no design standard.

Deputy Public Works Director (Development Services) Brent Siemer stated Mr.

Miller addressed comments that were provided as a supplemental. For the backup power source, different options were mentioned by the applicant but nothing has been submitted and therefore nothing has been reviewed. Mr. Siemer discussed the storm drain stub as a requirement for other property owners to extend, he does not know of a mechanism that Public Works could use to require a connection. Mr. 456
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 7 August 21, 2024
Gibson followed up that as a City we encourage applicants to communicate with their neighbors to come up with a common solution.

The Applicant, Eric Miller, agreed to the backup power for the drainage according to the City’s Mitigated Negative Declaration. A backup type has not been decided yet; Mr. Miller only agreed to have a backup power as required by the City. The details and manuals of the chosen backup method will be provided at a later date.

The civil engineer, Dane McDougal, stated the pump is industry standard. Mr.

McDougal stated this pump issue is not a life safety issue. If a pump fails, the water will just continue flowing south and not flood any homes.

Commissioner Kennedy asked the engineer about the overflow of the water. Dane McDougal stated holes would be drilled into the southwest wall to allow continual flowing. If the water were to be redirected, it would only be by 300 feet which is not much according to Mr. McDougal.

Chairperson Mann closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.

Chairperson Mann asked the City Attorney about the deed restrictions to future owners. Senior Assistant City Attorney Brian I. Hamblet stated he was no apart of the meeting with the applicant but was informed by Senior Assistant City Attorney Karl Berger that the restrictions were adequate. Chairperson Mann opened the public testimony so the applicant could respond. Eric Miller stated the information will be included in the CC&R’s (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions) and all future homeowners will be privy to the information. Chairperson Mann closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Mr. Mann asked a follow up question regarding other pumps within the City. Mr. Siemer stated there is an apartment complex previously mentioned that has a pump. Mr. Mann inquired about the existing southern wall and the knockouts previously mentioned. For the wall, Mr.

Siemer stated the knockouts are not currently in place. The knockouts would be added at a later date by the applicant. Chairperson Mann asked what the City does with sewer lift station pumps if those lose power. Mr. Siemer stated Public Works is prepared with backup generators in case of any power failures. Mr. Mann also asked why a detention basin was not discussed as an option. Mr. Siemer explained the calculation process.

Commissioner Rice asked for the dimensions on the single car garages. Senior Planner Elizabeth Richardson responded 10 feet 10 inches by 20 feet.

Chairperson Mann inquired why the applicant would treat the storm water. Deputy Public Works Director (Development Services) Brent Siemer stated storm water is treated for sediment.

Chairperson Mann asked if the development to the south can be approved without the required 30 foot driveway from this current project. Mr. Gibson and Mr. Siemer both stated they cannot answer the question because there is an incomplete application on the site. Mr. Mann states from his viewpoint that each project location, current and south, need each other for each project. 457
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 8 August 21, 2024
Chairperson Mann, Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson, and Senior Assistant City Attorney Brian I. Hamblet discussed the options for approving or continuing the project.

Chairperson Mann opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.

Chairperson Mann asked the applicant their preference on continuing or approving the hearing. Michelle Thrakulchavee stated City Venture’s preference would be to vote tonight, but if the draining is an issue to consider adding a condition that can be accepted in exchange for a favorable decision.

Chairperson Mann closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.

Commissioner Rice mentioned condition B-13 works with the drainage issue.

Chairperson Mann opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.

The applicant, Eric Miller, stated the storm drain pump is a sticking point. Sewer system pumps are used on other projects with HOA’s. If an HOA has the capability to maintain a sewer pump system, they have the capability to maintain a storm drain system. Mr. Miller also stated the 30-foot road requirement is a condition to allow the southern property access to their site.

Chairperson Mann closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.

Chairperson Mann asked if the project is conditioned to give an easement to the south property. Principal Engineer Justin Link explained the difference between the easement and roadway.

Chairperson Mann opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.

The applicant, Eric Miller, spoke again regarding the easement to the property to the south. Michelle Thrakulchavee stated the property to the south cannot be built without a 30-foot roadway and the current project is willing to construct it.

Chairperson Mann closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.

COMMISSIONER TOLSON MOVED THAT THE

PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI

VALLEY ADOPT A RESOLUTION

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA2022-0001), ZONE CHANGE (Z-S-2022-0003), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (PD-S-2022-
0012) AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (VTT-2024-
0001) TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 70-
458
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 9 August 21, 2024

UNIT, THREE STORY, MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT;

AND ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
PLAN
Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion.

AYES: Commissioners Kennedy, Rice, and
Tolson; and Chairperson Mann
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Vice Chairperson Mayer
There is no appeal period and the item will proceed to
the City Council.

B. OTHER – None

12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
A. STAFF
Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson stated the next meeting will be held on September 4, 2024. The Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan and a development project will be on the agenda.

B. PLANNING COMMISSION – None
C. MOBILE HOME RENT MEDIATION BOARD – None
D. TREE ADVISORY BOARD – None

13. ADJOURNMENT
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting is on September 4, 2024.

Minutes prepared by:

Megan Grai
459
GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg)

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CASE NO.: GPA-2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003, HEARING DATE: August 21, 2024 PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-0001/AHA-2022-0002
STAFF CONTACT: Elizabeth Richardson
(805) 583-6334
REQUEST: Consideration of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Planned Development Permit and Vesting
Tentative Map, to change the General Plan Land Use
designation from General Commercial and Medium Density
Residential to High Density Residential, change the Zoning designation from Commercial Planned Development (CPD)
and Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential High Density (RH), in order to construct a new 70-unit, 3-story multi-family residential condominium development with an Affordable Housing Agreement and development
incentives; and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan
RECOMMENDATION: Consider the request and suggested options in the Issues section of the staff report and provide direction to staff.

APPLICANT: City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
Attn: Eric Miller
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone Number: (909) 996-8585
Email: [email protected]
GENERAL PLAN: Existing: General Commercial, Medium Density Residential Proposed: High Density Residential
ZONING: Existing: Commercial Planned Development (CPD) & Residential Medium Density (RM)
Proposed: Residential High Density (RH)
LOCATION: 1845 Oak Road
AGENDA ITEM NO.

11.A.1.
460
CASE NO. GPA-2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003/PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-0001 APPLICANT: City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
2 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC, requests approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA-2022-0001) to change the General Plan Land Use Map designation from General Commercial and Medium Density Residential (3.6-5.0 units per acre) to High Density Residential (10.1-20 units per acre); a Zone Change (Z-S-2022-0003) to change the zone from Commercial Planned Development (CPD) and Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential High Density (RH); a Vesting Tentative Map (VTT-2024- 0001); and Planned Development Permit (PD-S-2022-0012) for constructing a new 70- unit townhouse style condominium community (owner-occupied units) on a 3.61-acre site located at 1845 Oak Road. The project also includes an affordable housing component with a request for development waivers pursuant to California law.

The site is comprised of four parcels, located on the south side of East Los Angeles Avenue, just east of the intersection of Yosemite Avenue and East Los Angeles Avenue.

The site was the previous location of Phoenix Ranch School, which stopped operating at this location in 2014. The site is developed with school buildings, parking lots, a swimming pool, play area, and landscaping which are all proposed to be demolished as part of the residential development. The land use designations, zoning designations, and land uses surrounding the site are shown in Table 1:
461
CASE NO. GPA-2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003/PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-0001 APPLICANT: City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
3 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) Table 1 – Land use Designations, Zoning Designations and Use of Land

GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE
Subject
Site:

Existing: General
Commercial and Medium
Density Residential (3.6-

5.0 units per acre)
Proposed: High Density
Residential (10.1-20 du/acre)
Existing: Commercial
Planned Development
(CPD) and Residential
Medium Density (RM)
Proposed: Residential
High Density (RH)
Existing: Parking Lot;
Private School (vacant)
Proposed: 70
townhomes
North: General Commercial;
High Density Residential
(10.1-20 du/acre)
Commercial Planned
Development (CPD)
Residential High Density
(RH)
Los Angeles Ave.; Retail
Stores; Multi-family
residential
South: Moderate Density
Residential (5.1-10 du/acre);
Mobile Home (0-8 du/acre)
Residential Moderate
Density (RM); Mobile
Home (MH)
Mobile Home Park;
Single Family Residential
East: General Commercial; Mobile
Home (0-8 du/acre); Very
High Density Residential
(20.1-35 du/acre)
Commercial Planned
Development (CPD):

Mobile Home (MH)(SP);
Residential High Density
(RH)
Mobile Home Park;
Single Family Residential
West: General Commercial (.30
FAR); High Density
Residential (10.1-20 du/acre)
Commercial Planned
Development (CPD);
Residential High Density
(RH)
Apartments; Fire Station
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
The General Plan Land Use designations, split among four parcels for the site, are General Commercial for 1.72 acres of the site and Medium Density Residential for 1.89 acres of the site. The requested General Plan Amendment will change the land use for the entire 3.61-acre site to High Density Residential (10.1-20 du/acre) (See Figures 2 and 3). The proposed General Plan Land Use Map revision is included in the Resolution as Exhibit B.
462
CASE NO. GPA-2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003/PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-0001 APPLICANT: City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
4 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) Figure 2 - Existing Land Use Figure 3 - Proposed Land Use

There are multiple zoning designations for the site with 1.72 acres of the site being zoned Commercial Planned Development (CPD), and 1.89 acres being zoned Residential Medium Density (RM). The proposed zone change will change the zoning for the entire

3.61-acre site to Residential High Density (RH) (See Figure 4 and 5). The proposed Zoning Map amendment is included in the Resolution as Exhibit C.

Figure 4 – Existing Zoning Figure 5 – Proposed Zoning

The purpose of both the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is to allow residential development consistent with the existing residential development surrounding the project site. With the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change the site’s predensity bonus development range is 10.1 – 20 units per acre or 36-72 units per acre (70 units proposed with this project). Existing RH zoning abuts the property’s west and east boundaries.
463
CASE NO. GPA-2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003/PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-0001 APPLICANT: City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
5 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) Planned Development Permit
The 3.61-acre project site is proposed to be developed with a 70-unit multi-family residential condominium community. The development will consist of 11 three-story, 40- foot tall buildings containing a mix of one, three and four bedroom units. Primary site access would be provided via East Los Angeles Avenue on Oak Road and a secondary entrance would be located off Shunk Road. Amenities will include two active outdoor spaces including a tot lot, active lawn area, barbecue area, picnic tables, and benches. (Figure 6)
As described in Table 2 below, the 11 buildings are numbered 100 to 600. Buildings 100 and 500 will contain one-bedroom and three-bedroom units and buildings 200, 300, 400 and 600 will contain three-bedroom and four-bedroom units. Parking will include garage, driveway, and common driveway parking.

Table 2 – Plan Type Mix
Plan
Number
Square
Footage
Bedroom/Bath Parking Number
of units
Building
Location
Plan 1 725 sq. ft. 1 bedroom/1 bath 1-car
garage
10 100 & 500
Plan 2 1,285 sq. ft. 3 bedroom/3 bath 2-car
garage
2 100
Plan 3 1,525 sq. ft. 3 bedroom/2 bath/2
powder
2-car
garage
28 200, 300, 400
& 600
Plan 4 1,710 sq. ft. 4 bedroom/3.5 bath 2-car
garage
30 200, 300, 400
& 600
464
CASE NO. GPA-2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003/PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-0001 APPLICANT: City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
6 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) Figure 6 – Site Plan
The project was reviewed for compliance and consistency with the Simi Valley Municipal Code (“SVMC”). In Table 3 below, consistency with the SVMC is described and requested waivers are identified. The Affordable Housing portion of this staff report further explains eligibility requirements for waivers. In addition, the Density Bonus Request Letter contained in Exhibit 7 discusses the applicant’s reasons for not being able to comply with the code and provide affordable housing units.

Table 3: Municipal Code Requirements
Standard Required Provided
Minimum Building
Setbacks
Front (North): 45 feet 20 feet (Density Bonus
Waiver to decrease the
front yard setback is
requested)
Rear (South): 20 feet 10 feet (Density Bonus
Waiver to decrease the
rear yard setback is
requested)
465
CASE NO. GPA-2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003/PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-0001 APPLICANT: City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
7 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) Side (West and East): East – 15 feet (Street
Side Yard)
West – 10 feet (Interior
Side Yard)
East Side – 10 feet
(Density Bonus Waiver to
decrease the street side
yard setback is requested)
West Side – 5 feet
(Density Bonus Waiver to
decrease the interior side
yard setback is requested)
Maximum Building
Height
Maximum Number of
Stories
40 feet
3 stories
40 feet
3 stories
Minimum Off-Street
Parking
One-bedroom (10 units)
Three-bedroom (30
units)
Four-bedroom (30 units)
Guest Parking
130 spaces pursuant
to Density Bonus Law
[Government Code
Section 65915(p)(1)
and (4)]
1 space per unit x 10
units (10 Spaces)

1.5 spaces per unit x 30
units (45 spaces)

2.5 spaces per unit x 30
units (75 spaces)
None Required
168 spaces:

Garage – 130 spaces
Driveway – 18 spaces
Common Driveway – 20
Each unit has 1 space in
private garage
Each three and four
bedroom units have twocar private garages
Not designated
Landscaping adjacent to
streets
Enriched Landscaping
Total required front yard
landscaping
10-foot wide
landscaping area
along street facing
property line

17.5 feet wide

27.5 feet

18.5 feet (Density Bonus
Waiver to decrease the
required front yard
landscaping is requested)
Residential development projects are required to comply with the Mandatory and Optional Development standards contained in SVMC § 9-24.060. The project complies with seven Mandatory Standards described in Table 4 below. Depending on the type of housing project, there are variable minimum number of Optional Development Standards that must be included in a residential development. As an affordable housing project, the development must comply with seven optional development standards. The seven optional standards the applicant is requesting are described in Table 5. 466
CASE NO. GPA-2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003/PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-0001 APPLICANT: City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
8 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) Table 4: Mandatory Standards per SVMC Section 9-24.060(B)

STANDARD PROVIDED
1 1b. Fencing materials shall be
slumpstone, wrought iron, textured
concrete or other similarly constructed
walls.

The project site will include new
retaining walls, block walls and
fences along the perimeter of the site.

Final review and approval of the
colors and materials would be
conducted by the Deputy
Environmental Services Director/City
Planner. (Condition *A-19)
2 1c. All property line walls and fences
shall be no further than one inch from
any property line.

The project complies with this
requirement, per Condition *A-19.
3 1d. All aboveground utility equipment
visible from the street shall be screened
by the use of landscaping or a low wall
matching the building décor.

Condition A-12 requires that the
applicant provide a Final Utility
Equipment Screening Program for all
aboveground utilities.
4 1f & 2c. Roof equipment shall be
screened from view of adjacent parcels
and street rights-of-way by means which
are architecturally integrated into the
structure.

The roof plan indicates that the
proposed rooftop HVAC units will be
screened by the proposed parapet
and screen walls, and required per
Condition *A-20.
5 2a. Each project shall contain a
sufficient number of trash enclosures to
screen bins for collection of discards
pursuant to SVMC 9-35.

The floor plans for each unit type
identifies the storage location of trash
and recycle bins in the garage outside
the required parking area.
6 3. Affordable and senior housing
projects shall have an Affordable or
Senior Housing Agreement in
compliance with the City’s Affordable
Housing Guidelines.

The project will include an Affordable
Housing Agreement for the ten
affordable units.
467
CASE NO. GPA-2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003/PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-0001 APPLICANT: City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
9 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) Table 5: Seven Optional Standards per SVMC Section 9.24.060(D)* Standard Provided
1 2a. The project shall be an “infill
project.”
The project is an infill project, located on the
“valley floor” and is surrounded by existing
residential and commercial development.
2 2i. The project shall integrate
enriched landscaping in parkways
and green belts throughout the
site.

The project includes an enriched landscape
area at the front property line adjacent to East
Los Angeles Avenue, perimeter landscaping
along the pathways and private yards,
courtyard landscape and hardscape in the
interior courtyards of five buildings with new
trees and shrubs. Additionally the site has a
tot lot, barbeque, picnic tables and active
lawn area.
3 2j. Roof materials shall not consist
of asphalt shingles.

The project uses roof tile as the roofing
material for all buildings in the development.
4 4b. 50% or more of the dwelling
units shall have three or more
bedrooms.

The development has 60 units that are 3 and
4 bedrooms in size, this is 85% of the total
number of units.
5 4c. Parking spaces for each unit
shall be no more than 100 feet from
the unit they serve.

Each unit has its own individual attached
garage with direct access into the residence.
6 4f. The project shall provide an
individual fully enclosed garage for
each unit in the project.

Each unit has its own individual attached
garage with direct access into the residence.
7 4h. The project shall be designed
with direct entry from the unit to the
fully enclosed garage.

Each unit has its own individual attached
garage with direct access into the residence
The building design follows a Progressive Spanish architectural design. Progressive Spanish is inspired by traditional Spanish architectural elements such as red tiles, stucco walls, gabled roofs, and simple ornamentation, but uses more contemporary materials and straightforward forms. The design uses stucco and fiber cement composite siding, pitched gabled roofs with flat roof tiles. Additional design details include recessed windows, balconies, vent pipe details, and simple articulate openings such as arched doorways. The development has two different color schemes but keep a cohesive design with the same stucco color, metal window and door color and roof tile used on all buildings (Figures 7 and 8).

The buildings are all rectangular in shape with units facing out on all four sides. Entries face onto either a shared landscaped courtyard or a landscaped walkway, both designs would be access for multiple units. Residences have private open space as balconies and some units have private front yard gated patios or fenced side yards. Shared open space is provided with a tot lot on the western edge of the site and in the center of the project site is an area with active common yard, barbeque area and picnic tables. 468
CASE NO. GPA-2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003/PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-0001 APPLICANT: City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
10 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) The building massing is modulated with horizontal and vertical articulation with different garage doors and front doors to help define each unit. The buildings facades are broken up with the use of vertical tower elements that extend from the ground to the roofline. The tower elements are used to define the front entrances to units and add design details in the area of the balconies. The facades are also articulated with by furring out portions of the building in areas where windows are located. The use of different roofs directions helps articulate the vertical portions of each building. Rooftop mechanical equipment is screened with parapet walls that are detailed with a cornice, however in some areas the parapet walls break the gabled tile rooflines causing an unfinished look to the building.

Figure 7 – Typical Building Elevation
Figure 8 – Typical Building Elevation
Refer to Exhibit 1 and the 11” x 17” exhibits for complete project plans.

A traffic study was prepared for the project, which found that the project would generate approximately 472 average daily trips with 28 a.m. peak trips and 16 p.m. peak trips. The City’s Traffic Engineer determined the additional trips generated by the proposed project will not create a significant impact on existing traffic operations in the vicinity. Refer to Exhibit 2 for the Traffic Study.
469
CASE NO. GPA-2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003/PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-0001 APPLICANT: City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
11 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) A Tree Report was prepared by Richard Campbell (Exhibit 3). The site currently 55 mature trees, 44 of which will be removed for site improvements. The trees to be removed consist of 14 Canary Island Pine, 2 Sweet Gum, 1 Sugar Maple, 5 Evergreen Elm, 3 Camphora Tree, 1 Avocado, 1 Bottle Tree, 1 Arizona Cypress, 1 Aleppo Pine, 7 Coast Redwood, 1 Wax-Leaf Privet, 1 Mulberry Tree, 3 Shamel Ash, 1 European Beech, 1 Evergreen Ash, and 1 California Sycamore. The City’s Mature Tree Preservation regulations requires the applicant to replace the removed trees with specimen size trees (36-inch box) planted on site, valued up to the appraised value of the trees being removed. The total replacement value of the removed mature trees is $82,089. The applicant proposes to address the loss by planting replacement trees of equal value located throughout the project site. Per Planned Development Condition C-2, the applicant is required to obtain a Tree Removal Permit before removal or approval of the grading plans for the project to ensure tree replacement.

Vesting Tentative Map
The applicant is requesting a Vesting Tentative Map (VTT- 2024-0001) to subdivide each building’s air space to create condominium units (for sale units). The VTT will create 70 units that will be available for sale to individual homeowners. A Homeowners Association will be created by the residents to manage the common space portion of the development including the streets and open space. The VTT gives the right to develop the property in accordance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect when the map is approved, and requires final approval by the City Council, unlike standard tentative maps.

Affordable Housing Component
As part of the project, the applicant is requesting development incentives in exchange for providing affordable for-sale units pursuant to California Density Bonus law. The applicant is requesting seven waivers to development standards, as allowed by Government Code § 65915(e)(1). In exchange, the Applicant is providing 10 affordable housing units for qualified Moderate-Income homebuyers (14% of the 70 units). The 10 one-bedroom units are proposed to be designated as the affordable units. The City requires an Affordable Housing Agreement to address administration of the affordable units over a 55-year term, and will be considered by the City Council.

The requested waivers include reduced front, side and rear yard setbacks, reduced garage dimension for the one-car garages, and reduced front yard landscaping. Refer to the Applicant’s letter dated October 16, 2023 (Exhibit 7) for its explanation of the requested waivers.

With the Applicant providing 10 affordable housing units for qualified Moderate-Income homebuyers (14% of the 70 units), per Government Code § 65915, the project qualifies for a 9% density bonus, reduced parking requirements, one development concession and multiple waivers as long as the waivers do not impose a life or safety hazard. The Applicant has not requested for any density bonus or development concession for the Project. Concessions are defined as reductions in site development standards or modifications of zoning/architectural design requirements that result in “identifiable and 470
CASE NO. GPA-2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003/PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-0001 APPLICANT: City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
12 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing.” Waivers are mandatory upon request of the Applicant, for development standards that “physically preclude” the construction of a project. Denial by the City of any of the waivers would require either specific written findings or alternatively, under the definition of waivers, it would be necessary to find that the granting of the waiver is not required because the waiver in question does not “physically preclude” the construction of the Project. However, in this case, the City Council’s decision regarding approving a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change is completely discretionary; it is not obligated to take such action.

NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL
Executive Board of Neighborhood Council (NC) #2 heard the project on July 9, 2024 and recommended approval by a vote of 4-2-1. The audience vote was 0-2-0. A summary of NC #2 meeting is included as Exhibit 5.

ISSUES
Site Drainage. The drainage studies prepared for the project show the current condition for stormwater allows surface water to run to the southwest corner of the site and collect.

To remedy this condition with the project proposal, the applicant proposes to allow stormwater to surface flow across the site, drain into an underground storm drain and empty into an underground detention basin. The engineering issue with this design is that there is insufficient grade change to allow the water collected in the detention basin to then flow northerly back through the site into the existing storm drain located in Los Angeles Avenue.

To remedy this problem the Applicant proposes to use a privately owned and maintained pump system to move water from the detention basin easterly back to an outlet bubbler in Oak Road. Stormwater will then exit this bubbler to the surface and gravity flow south to the Arroyo Simi across the adjacent property to the south. Should this approach be approved by the Planning Commission, a hold harmless agreement requirement would be necessary and is included with the conditions. This agreement would indemnify the City from any impacts should the system fail or should the stormwater running across the adjacent property to the Arroyo Simi cause other damage or harm.

As proposed by the developer, the pump system is required to be designed with all necessary equipment for emergency operation such as generator’s and other emergency back-up. Additionally an Operations and Maintenance Manual must also be submitted for approval by the Public Works Director. A requirement would be added to the CC&R’s for the project ensuring that the obligation for maintenance of this system is in force for the lifetime of the project. Once completed, the future HOA will be responsible and liable to maintain the entire stormwater system.

As the project is only in its conceptual stages of design, the applicant has not yet provided any preliminary design of the storm water pumping facility for review by Public Works. As the facility must function during all storm events, and be fully reliable even in emergencies such as unpredictable power outages during heavy rain events, a careful review of the 471
CASE NO. GPA-2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003/PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-0001 APPLICANT: City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
13 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) design by the City would occur during the formal plan review process to ensure it was as reliable as possible should this option be approved.

It is staff’s opinion that pumping systems of this type should only be permitted as a last resort when no other traditional engineering approach incorporating gravity flow is available. Staff’s position that using a pumping system was undesirable was communicated to the applicant. However, in order to take into consideration the applicant’s desire to have this option available, a hold harmless condition is included with the draft resolution. As such the proposed stormwater drainage system is an undesirable design approach for the project, and staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide staff additional direction, and which may include:

Option A: Allow the applicant to request a continuance to a date uncertain so it may further explore with the surrounding owners, other drainage options, and to investigate further more traditional engineering approaches to draining their site, such as channels or storm drain systems using gravity.

Option B: Deny the application (applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council).

If the Planning Commission chooses to deny the project, a finding for denial should be provided due to potential health and safety impacts, or that the GPA or Zone Change findings outlined in the attached resolution cannot be met.

Option C: If the Planning Commission does not concur with staff’s position, a Resolution recommending approval of the project to the City Council with suggested project conditions, including Vesting Tentative Map Conditions B-13 a & b and Planned Development Conditions B-15 a & b regarding the indemnification and design of the pump systems, are attached.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS
An Initial Study was prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15063 (Exhibit 6). Based on the conclusions of the Initial Study, the City determined that the project could have a potentially significant impact on Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water Quality, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. However, 15 mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project that would reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts to an insignificant level. The mitigation measures are summarized below:

Biological Resources: The applicant must retain a qualified biologist to conduct a Nesting Bird Study before construction to address potential biological impacts on the site.

Cultural Resources: Archaeological monitoring is required for initial project related ground disturbing activities by an approved archaeologist and if resources are found all project activities must halt.

Geology/Soils: The applicant will dispose of all existing concrete and asphalt and the site must be recompacted in areas of artificial fill. If fossils are found earth moving activities must stop and a paleontologist will be consulted. 472
CASE NO. GPA-2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003/PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-0001 APPLICANT: City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
14 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) Hydrology/Water Quality: Should the Planning Commission approve the Applicant’s request for a Stormwater Pumping System, safeguards will be included as requirements of the CC&R’s and the final design. These requirements will address as much as practical, proper design and redundancy of the system. The applicant must therefore include provisions in the CC&R’s ensuring that the design for the pumping facility and for emergency operations of it will be per industry standards. Additionally they will be required to enter into a Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement with the City requiring that they submit annual inspection and maintenance reports for the facility.

These measures will therefore ensure that the facility remains operational during the lifetime of the project to protect the environment and the surrounding community.

Noise: To reduce construction noise all equipment must be equipped with noise attenuating devices, hours are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and the staging area must be located away from noise sensitive receptors. Residences facing directly on Los Angeles Avenue must have air conditioning to allow windows to be closed for noise reducing purposes.

Tribal Cultural Resources: The Applicant will mitigate impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources through consultation with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians on cultural resources and retaining a professional Tribal Monitor for construction activities.

Mitigation Monitoring Fee: The Applicant will submit a Mitigation Monitoring fee before starting ground-disturbing activities.

Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15070 and 15072, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project and circulated for a 20-day public review period from July 29, 2024 through August 19, 2024.

Based on the proposed project and information provided, including the Initial Study prepared for GPA-2022-0001, Z-S-2022-0003, PD-S-2022-0012, VTT-2022-0003, AHA2022-0002, there is no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. The documents reflect the independent judgement and analysis of the City.
473
CASE NO. GPA-2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003/PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-0001 APPLICANT: City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
15 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) INDEX Page
Public Hearing Procedure ............................................................................................. 16 Resolution ..................................................................................................................... 19 Exhibit A: Legal Description .................................................................................... 25 Exhibit B: Proposed Land Use Map Revisions......................................................... 27 Exhibit C: Proposed Zoning Map Revisions............................................................. 28 Exhibit D: Conditions of Approval – Vesting Tentative Map..................................... 29 Exhibit E: Conditions of Approval – Planned Development Permit .......................... 37 Exhibit F: Ventura County Fire Protection District Memorandum, September 3, 2024 ......................................................................................................... 50 Exhibit G: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)........................... 54 Exhibit H: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Planned Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map List of Findings .................................................... 69 Exhibit 1: Reduced Exhibits (11” x 17”)
Exhibit 2: Traffic Impact Study
Exhibit 3: Tree Report
Exhibit 4: Noise Impact Study Memorandum dated August 5, 2024 Exhibit 5: Neighborhood Council #2 Summary
Exhibit 6: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study Exhibit 7: Letter from Applicant Requesting Waivers
474
19 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) RESOLUTION NO. SVPC 09-2024

A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY

STORY, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1845 OAK ROAD; AND

ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Factual Findings and Conclusions. The Planning Commission finds as follows:

D. The Director completed the review and scheduled the public hearing regarding the application before the Planning Commission for August 21, 2024; E. On August 21, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed project, including, without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and public testimony; and
475
RES. NO SVPC 09-2024
20 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) F. The Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence presented to the Commission at its August 21, 2024, hearing including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Director.

SECTION 2: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Planned Development Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map findings. Pursuant to Exhibit H, the Planning Commission makes the following findings:

Additionally, the Permittee is required to prepare a Maintenance Agreement which will include requirements for the continual maintenance, repair, and replacement of project facilities.

3. Policy LU 15.2: The 70-unit condominium project provides outdoor tot-lot and barbeque and picnic space.

C. The project complies with the Simi Valley Municipal Code (“SVMC”) in that a multifamily condominium complex is a permitted use within the RH zone subject to approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Planned Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map, per SVMC Chapter 9-24. The project is consistent with the SVMC’s setbacks, maximum building height, maximum number 476
RES. NO SVPC 09-2024
21 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) of stories, minimum off-street parking and landscaping standards, with its requested waivers that permit deviation from the SVMC standards. (1) The residential component of the project also meets the requirements contained in SVMC § 9-24.060, in that the proposed project meets the mandatory Standards and seven Optional Standards in SVMC § 9-24.060(B) and § 9-24.060 (D).
(2) The proposed project qualifies for the parking requirements in Government Code § 65951.

D. The project is consistent with the following City adopted Design Guidelines as follows:

G. The project site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of development in that the 70-unit condominium complex is a high density development surrounded by high density apartments, mobile home park and residential subdivisions of a similar density. Access to the site will be on Oak Road and Shunk Road off East Los Angeles Avenue and will have internal driveways to access each unit’s individual garage and on-street parking. Therefore, the site is physically suitable for development of this project.
477
RES. NO SVPC 09-2024
22 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) H. The wastewater treatment would be provided by the Simi Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant which treats about 10 million gallons per day (MGD). Based on standard usage factors based on land use, the Project is expected to generate approximately 19,250 gallons of sewage per day. This would be 0.2% of the daily sewage handled by the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. Therefore, constructing the condominium complex would not result in a violation of the California Water Code.

Therefore, the design provides natural heating and cooling opportunities.

SECTION 4: Recommendation to City Council. Subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit “D” – Vesting Tentative Map conditions and Exhibit “E” – Planned Development Permit conditions,” which are incorporated by reference (the “COA”), the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 478
RES. NO SVPC 09-2024
23 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) (GPA-2022-0001) set forth in Exhibit “B”; Zone Change (Z-S-2022-0003) set forth in attached Exhibit “C”; and Mitigation Monitoring Plan set forth in attached Exhibit “G”; Planned Development Permit (PD-S-2022-00012); and Vesting Tentative Map (VTT2024-0001).

SECTION 7: Limitations. The Planning Commission’s analysis and evaluation of the project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the Planning Commission’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City’s ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues.

The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 8: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent resolution.

SECTION 9: The Commission secretary is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to any person requesting a copy.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 21st day of August 2024.

Attest:
_________________________________ _________________________________ Megan Grai Allan C. Mann, Chairperson
Recording Secretary Planning Commission
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

ALGERIA R. FORD, City Attorney
_________________________________ _________________________________ Brian I. Hamblet Sean Gibson
Senior Assistant City Attorney Deputy Environmental Services Director/ City Planner
479
RES. NO SVPC 09-2024
24 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution as duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley, California, at a regular meeting held on August 21, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

Megan Grai
Recording Secretary
480
RES. NO. SVPC 09-2024

EXHIBIT H
CASE NO.: PD-S-2022-0012
APPLICANT: City Ventures, LLC
69 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) General Plan Amendment (General Plan, Chapter 1, page 1-17) General Plan Amendment Finding (General Plan, Chapter 1, page 1-17): The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest, is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, and is otherwise consistent with the General Plan, and the appropriate environmental review has been completed before acting on any request. 9-73.070 Findings and Decision
An amendment to this Development Code or the Official Zoning Map may be approved only if the review authority first finds all of the following:

A. The amendment is consistent with the General Plan, and the applicable review authority shall state the reasons why the land use(s) authorized by the amendment is compatible with the purpose, intent, goals, policies, programs, and land use designations specified in the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan, in compliance with State law (Government Code Section 65860).

B. The applicable review authority shall state how it has considered the effect of this amendment on the housing needs of the region and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and against available fiscal and environmental resources, in compliance with State law (Government Code Section 65863.6).

C. If the amendment by its terms limits the number of housing units which may be constructed on an annual basis, the applicable review authority shall make additional findings which explain and justify how the public health, safety, and welfare of the City are to be promoted by the amendment which reduces the housing opportunities of the region, in compliance with State law (Government Code Section 65863.6).
(§ 5, Ord. 1085, eff. January 6, 2006)
9-52.050 Planned Development Permits
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to provide a process for approving a Planned Development Permit which is intended to:

1. Provide a method whereby land may be designed and developed as a single unit by taking advantage of modern site planning techniques thereby resulting in a more efficient use of land and a better living environment than is otherwise possible through strict application of the development standards identified in Article 2 (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zone-Specific Standards); and

2. Ensure development which meets high standards of environmental quality, public health and safety, the efficient use of the City's resources, and the purpose, intent, goals, policies, programs, and land use designations of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
481
RES. NO. SVPC 09-2024
CASE NO.: PD-S-2022-0012
APPLICANT: City Ventures, LLC
70 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) B. Applicability.

1. A Planned Development Permit shall be required for:
a. All residential development projects with two or more dwelling units; and b. All commercial and industrial development projects within the City identified in Article 2 (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zone-Specific Standards), unless a Conditional Use Permit is required in compliance with Section 9-52.070.

2. For projects requiring a Planned Development Permit, no Building or Grading Permit, or other City approval that permits physical dirt movement (including clearing and grubbing), construction, or development shall be issued until the Planned Development Permit has been approved in compliance with this Section.

3. A Planned Development Permit may not authorize a land use activity that is not allowed in the base zoning district.

C. Application requirements. An application for a Planned Development Permit shall be filed in compliance with Chapter 9-50 (Application Filing and Processing). The application shall be accompanied by the information identified by the Department.

D. Review authority. Planned Development Permits may be granted in compliance with the following and Table 5-2 (Planned Development Permit Review Authority):

1. Director. The Director may grant Administrative Planned Development Permits, or may defer action and refer the application to the Commission; and

2. Commission. The Commission may grant Planned Development Permits.

TABLE 5-2 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW AUTHORITY Threshold Categories Administrative
Planned
Development
Permits (By the
Director)
Planned
Development
Permits (By the
Commission)
Residential Projects* - two to four
dwelling units
■
Residential Projects* - five or more
dwelling units
■
Commercial Projects - ■
Industrial Projects - ■
* Senior/Affordable Residential Projects to be approved by the City Council.

E. Project review, notice and hearing.

1. Each Planned Development Permit application shall be reviewed by the Director to ensure that the application is consistent with the purpose and intent of this 482
RES. NO. SVPC 09-2024
CASE NO.: PD-S-2022-0012
APPLICANT: City Ventures, LLC
71 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) Section. A staff report and recommendation will be provided to the approval body for their consideration.

2. When Commission action is taken, the Commission shall conduct a public hearing on an application for a Planned Development Permit before the approval or disapproval of the permit.

3. Notice of any public hearing shall be provided, and the hearing shall be conducted in compliance with Chapter 9-74 (Public Hearings).

4. The Director's action on an Administrative Planned Development Permit shall not require a public hearing, if it is determined that the proposed project will not substantially affect any property rights of others.

F. Findings and decision. Following a public hearing, the applicable review authority may approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove an application for a Planned Development Permit and shall record the decision and the findings upon which the decision is based. The review authority may approve a Planned Development Permit only after first finding that: The Planned Development Permit would:

1. Be consistent with the purpose, intent, goals, policies, programs, and land use designations of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan;

2. Be in full compliance with this Development Code and the Municipal Code;

3. Ensure consistency with applicable design guidelines; and

4. Ensure that the proper standards and conditions have been imposed which protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

G. Conditions of approval. In approving a Planned Development Permit, the applicable review authority may impose conditions (e.g., buffers, environmental protection, landscaping and maintenance, lighting, parking, performance guarantees, property maintenance, public infrastructure improvements, time limits, etc.) deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the approval would be in compliance with the findings required by Subsection F (Findings and decision), above.

H. Post approval procedures. The procedures relating to appeals, changes, expiration, performance guarantees, and revocation that are identified in Article 7 (Development Code Administration) shall apply following the decision on a Planned Development Permit application.
(§ 5, Ord. 1085, eff. January 6, 2006, as amended by § 2 (part), Ord. 1110, eff. April 6, 2007, and Exh. A, Ord. 1147, eff. August 20, 2009)
9-61.060 - Mandatory Denial of Tentative Map
A Tentative Map shall be denied by the Advisory Agency if any of the findings are made requiring denial pursuant to Map Act Sections 66473.5, 66474, 66474.4 or 66474.6. 483
RES. NO. SVPC 09-2024
CASE NO.: PD-S-2022-0012
APPLICANT: City Ventures, LLC
72 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) Section 66473.5 - Consistent with general plan
No local agency shall approve a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, unless the legislative body finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1.

A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a general plan or a specific plan only if the local agency has officially adopted such a plan and the proposed subdivision or land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in such a plan.

Section 66474 - Disapproval of tentative map or parcel map for which tentative map not required
A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the following findings:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
484
RES. NO. SVPC 09-2024
CASE NO.: PD-S-2022-0012
APPLICANT: City Ventures, LLC
73 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) Section 66474.4 - Parcels too small to sustain agricultural use or residential development not incidental to commercial agricultural use (a) The legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it finds that either the resulting parcels following a subdivision of that land would be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development not incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land, and if the legislative body finds that the land is subject to any of the following:
(1) A contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 51200) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5), including an easement entered into pursuant to Section 51256. (2) An open-space easement entered into pursuant to the Open-Space Easement Act of 1974 (Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 51070) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5).
(3) An agricultural conservation easement entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 10260) of Division 10.2 of the Public Resources Code. (4) A conservation easement entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 815) of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code. (b)
(1) For purposes of this section, land shall be conclusively presumed to be in parcels too small to sustain their agricultural use if the land is (A) less than 10 acres in size in the case of prime agricultural land, or (B) less than 40 acres in size in the case of land that is not prime agricultural land. (2) For purposes of this section, agricultural land shall be presumed to be in parcels large enough to sustain their agricultural use if the land is (A) at least 10 acres in size in the case of prime agricultural land, or (B) at least 40 acres in size in the case of land that is not prime agricultural land. (c) A legislative body may approve a subdivision with parcels smaller than those specified in this section if the legislative body makes either of the following findings:
(1) The parcels can nevertheless sustain an agricultural use permitted under the contract or easement, or are subject to a written agreement for joint management pursuant to Section 51230.1 and the parcels that are jointly managed total at least 10 acres in size in the case of prime agricultural land or 40 acres in size in the case of land that is not prime agricultural land.
(2) One of the parcels contains a residence and is subject to Section 428 of the Revenue and Taxation Code; the residence has existed on the property for at least five years; the landowner has owned the parcels for at least 10 years; and the remaining parcels shown on the map are at least 10 acres in size if the land is prime agricultural land, or at least 40 acres in size if the land is not prime agricultural land. 485
RES. NO. SVPC 09-2024
CASE NO.: PD-S-2022-0012
APPLICANT: City Ventures, LLC
74 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) (d) No other homesite parcels as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) may be created on any remaining parcels under contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 51200) of Division 1 of Title 5) for at least 10 years following the creation of a homesite parcel pursuant to this section.
(e) This section shall not apply to land that is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 51200) of Division 1 of Title 5) when any of the following has occurred:
(1) A local agency formation commission has approved the annexation of the land to a city and the city will not succeed to the contract as provided in Sections 51243 and 51243.5.
(2) Written notice of nonrenewal of the contract has been served, as provided in Section 51245, and, as a result of that notice, there are no more than three years remaining in the term of the contract.
(3) The board or council has granted tentative approval for cancellation of the contract as provided in Section 51282.
(f) This section shall not apply during the three-year period preceding the termination of a contract described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a). (g) This section shall not be construed as limiting the power of legislative bodies to establish minimum parcel sizes larger than those specified in subdivision (a). (h) This section does not limit the authority of a city or county to approve a tentative or parcel map with respect to land subject to an easement described in this section for which agriculture is the primary purpose if the resulting parcels can sustain uses consistent with the intent of the easement.
(i) This section does not limit the authority of a city or county to approve a tentative or parcel map with respect to land subject to an easement described in this section for which agriculture is not the primary purpose if the resulting parcels can sustain uses consistent with the purposes of the easement.
(j) Where an easement described in this section contains language addressing allowable land divisions, the terms of the easement shall prevail. (k) The amendments to this section made in the 2002 portion of the 2001-02 Regular Session of the Legislature shall apply only with respect to contracts or easements entered into on or after January 1, 2003.

Section 66474.6 - Discharge of waste into existing community sewer system violates regional water quality control, board requirements The governing body of any local agency shall determine whether the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California regional water quality control board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code. In the 486
RES. NO. SVPC 09-2024
CASE NO.: PD-S-2022-0012
APPLICANT: City Ventures, LLC
75 GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report (mg) event that the governing body finds that the proposed waste discharge would result in or add to violation of requirements of such board, it may disapprove the tentative map or maps of the subdivision.
487
REDUCED EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1
488
EXHIBIT 1
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
EXHIBIT 2

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
532
1845 Oak Road
Traffic Impact Analysis
City of Simi Valley, California
June 9, 2023
Prepared by:

TJW ENGINEERING, INC.
9~41 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
949.878.3509 I www.tjwengineering.com
533 EXHIBIT 2
June 9, 2023
Mr. Eric Miller

CITY VENTURES
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92612
TJW ENGINEERING, INC.

TRAFFIC ENG,INEERING &

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

CONSULTANTS
Subject: Traffic Impact Analysis - 1845 Oak Road, City of Simi Valley Dear Mr. Miller:

TJW ENGINEER/NG, 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,
T
~
homas Wh
o
eat
~
, PE, TE
President
David Chew, PTP
Transportation Planner
Registered Civil Engineer #69467
Registered Traffic Engineer #2565
Daniel Flores, EIT
Project Engineer
9841 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 I Irvine, California 92618 I 949.878.3509 I www.tjwengineering.com 534
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 I www.tjwengineering.com
535
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
e CVR-22-002
1 536

7.2 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES , 27 I

7.3 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ......... 27 e CVR-22-002
2 537
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 S 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
e CVR-22-002
3 538

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. e CVR-22-002
4 539
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. e CVR-22-002
5 540
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.

CVR-22-002
6 541

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). e CVR-22-002
7 542
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 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
Source: Transportation Research Board Circular 212 - Interim Materials on Highway Capacity.

LOS= Level of Service, ICU= Intersection Capacity Utilization. e CVR-22-002
8 543
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 6
th 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 calculat~d 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 !Delay
Service
Description
(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 - SO.OD 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.

CVR-22-002
9 544

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) e CVR-22-002
10 545
L.f)
C
0 -.-'
en :,_
u -,:,
::,
0 ~ __J ~
-.-'
u
c:,
u Q
a; §
B u :,:::,
I.-
Q_ g
-,:,
rl c:,
c:,
-.-'
--'< "'
...D c:,
0 _c lf)
X
w
0() "" "-1
•
546
C
ro

0..

QJ
-I--'
V)
::,._
"t,
:0
Co ~ u
c:,
Q
§
u
~ g
"t,
c:,
a
Ct:
--'<
c:,
C)
..c Lr)
X """ 0() w ,.,
•
547
L
egend:

V /L'.Z Project Site
® Study Intersection Location
Exhibit 3: Proposed TIA Study Area
•. 1845 Oak Raad traffic impact Study
7 CVR-22-002 e Not lo Scale
548

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
Existing
Median
Speed On-Street
Roadway Classification
1 Jurisdiction Direction Travel
Type
2 Limit
Lanes (mph)
Parking
Secondary North- NMYosemite Ave Simi Valley 4 45 No
Arterial South TWLTL
RME Los Angeles Ave Primary Arterial· Simi Valley East-West 4 45 No TWLTL
Local Residential NorthOak Rd Simi Valley 2 NM 35 No
Street South
Shunk Rd
Local Residential NorthSimi Valley 2 NM 35 No
Street South
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 e CVR-22-002
14 549
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/Delay
1 LOS
AM 0.403 A
1 Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Signal
PM 0.337 A
AM 15.3 C
2 Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue OWSC
PM 16.0 C
AM 21.2 C
3 Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue TWSC
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 6
th 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.
e CVRs22-002
15 550
Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/
E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue 0 ~~
0 0
+
__)
~
~
__) • ~ - - - - - - ~ ( ~
•
-r ~
•
(
,f~ y +
Exhibit 4: Lane Geometry and Intersection Controls
• 1845 Oak Road rraffic impact" Study
10 CVR-22-002 e
Not to Scale
551

AM PEAK HOUR
Yosemite Avenue/
E Los Angeles Avenue
Oak Road/
E Los Angeles Avenue
Shunk Road/
E Los Angeles Avenue
0 /
.) ! \_
161 _j \_ 258
327 - - 414
30 -. r 60
\1r
"'"""' 0)0)~ 0 0
0 o-"'
535 -
-.
- 783 r4
\r
! \_
\_ 12
- 674 r6
39 _j
472 -
21 -.
\1r .,,r--o,
"-f~,;;f
IOO :,!NM

PM PEAK HOUR
Yosemite Avenue/
E Los Angeles Avenue
Oak Road/
E Los Angeles Avenue
Shunk Road/
E Los Angeles Avenue
0 __ ..,
OM-
--N 0 0 ~,;;;tM
.) ! \_ .) ! \_
145 _j \_ 134
723 - - 566
91 _j \_ 5
399 - - 355 620 - - 508
31 -. r 45 6 -. r7 17 -. r 4
\1r \r \fr
,.,-(") a, r-- ~II)~ ~~M
Exhibit 5: Existing AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes
• 1845 Oak Rood traffic impact Study
11 CVR-22-002 e
Not to Seate
552

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 (/TE) 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
Daily Trips (ADTs) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Proposed Land Use
1 Qty Unit
2 ln:Out Volume ln:Out Volume
Rate Volume Rate Rate
Split In Out Total Split 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
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 CVR-22-002
18 553
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 Ca/trans Highway Design Manual (HOM}, last edition.

In this analysis, the movements being analyze'd 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. e CVR-22-002
19 554
Legend:

V/L2 Project Site
® Study Intersection Location ~~

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/ Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/ E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue 0 oov 0 0 000 0 00~ 0 0 000
.,; l \_ .,; l \_ .,; l \_ . .) l \..
0 _j \_ 13
2 0
__) \_
0 0
__) \_
7 8 - 0
__) \_
0 0 - - 7 3 1 - - - 4 2 - - 1 - - 1 1 8 - - 4
0 1
2 \ r
1 2 1
0 r
1 \ r
4 8 4
\
\1r
r \
\1r
r \
\1r
\
\tr
r
\r \r
/ 000 a,(") l'-0(")
oo- <ON VON
Exhibit 6: Trip Distribution and Trip Assignments at Study Intersections • 1845 Oak Road traffic impact Study
14 CVR-22-002 e
Not to Scale
555
VENT JR.A COUNfY FI RE STATI ON
5874 LOS MGEL ES STR EfT
APN 6J7-0-i40-740
I
I
I
I ,·
--'·-,•
i
S!RAU~W..N !VI & SAR-\ lR
: $;~~2:ALi~~SC:-'g~!j. ;~~5
I A.PN: 637-0-140-475
I EXSIJllOIHG
ff,WFN WTERfRISfS~ lLC J .. I (10 ROIAlN)
Si~ 1.;~~it~SCA ~~~!j 1~~4 ! ...

APN: 6]7-0-140-6t5 '
I
fEX. t
/
EX. FENC( W/ PROF'. RElAINING/\
SCREEN ( TO SCRITN WAU.

I
I
I
-=I
I
t%~
~~~
~;51
'>n
o'-::i~
§~~
• V>
Cl,...._
C,:W
I-
::<: ,<(
z~
:::i a,:
:I: a..
(/) .......

Ex. WAl.l (tltSTE)
(ro B( REM OVED) ---1"'
•P1<0P . ~ WAID! SUMP
PSYSIDt (i"~
OISO! Cf tRU.TED
1 FtOWSONl Y)
~. PARKWAY F~
::,1Vl'fPEAl{ WlllG>.D
I
cm: ~R>.OLEY & na1v1. -rsosr
1807 OAK RD
5,1,11 \'AL.!.EY. CA 93063-4310
AFt\ -~:n-C-140-450
Exhibit 7: Sight Distance Analysis
• 1845 Oak Rood traffic impact Study
PRCf'. TAP£R ED S'l'Rf'NC
I.IOSILE HOME PARK
4,?t,/637-0-\40-1!5

SHUNK ROAD
<;11,11 VA!LEY'... ~ >:i3()63
l
J
~ ,.

I
I
15 CVR-22-002 e
Not to Scale
556

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 EP Conditions
Intersection Control Type Peak Hour
ICU/Delay1 LOS
AM 0.408 A
1 Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Signal
PM 0.342 A
AM 15.6 C
2 Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue owsc
PM 16.2 C
AM 21.4 C
3 Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue TWSC
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 6
th 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. e CVR-22-002
22 557

AM PEAK HOUR
Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/
E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue 0 mt'lO 0 0
0 0)0)~
o-.,-,
161 _)
l "- .) l "-
\_ 271
537 - - 790
39 _) \_ 12
327 - -415 475 -- - 675
30 \ r 61
3 \ r
5 23 \ r 1
,1r \r ,1r .,-,r--o,
:c"" NN<O ~~"-1"

PM PEAK HOUR
Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/
E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue 0 --o 0 0 ~VM
0(")(")
--N
.) l "- .) l "-
145 _) \_ 141
731 - - 570
91 _) \_
5 400 - - 356 622 - -s12
31 \ r 46
14 \ r 11 25 \
r
8 ,1r \r ,1r ,.,-,,. ~ 0, g:IO~ M~M
Exhibit 8: Existing Plus Project AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes • 1845 Oak Rood traffic impact Study
17 CVR-22-002 e
Not to Scale
558

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.

CVR-22-002
24 559
Table 8
Intersection Analysis - Cumulative Traffic Without Project (CNP) Conditions CNP Conditions
Intersection Control Type Peak Hour
ICU/Delay
1 LOS
AM 0.457 A
1 Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Signal
PM 0.644 B
AM 18.1 C
2 Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue owsc
PM 34.3 D
AM 24.8 C
3 Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue TWSC
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 6
th 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).
e CVR-22-002
25 560

AM PEAK HOUR
Yosemite Avenue/ Oak Road/ Shunk Road/
E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue 0 OHOa> 0 0
0 ..,_.,
o-"' --N
-
157 _}
l '- Jl'-
\_ 302 817-
- 918
39 _} \_ 12
437 - -551 757 - - 808
63 \ r 70
1 \ r
4 21------,. r 6
,ir \r ,ir -<OM
..-,o ~N(f') ~gO>

PM PEAK HOUR
Yosemite Avenue/
E Los Angeles Avenue
Oak Road/
E Los Angeles Avenue
Shunk Road/
E Los Angeles Avenue
0 .,...,_
-mm
N-N 0 0 ~'¢<"">
Jl'-
349 _} \_ 213
1129- -1141
153------,. r 100
,ir
1464-
6 \
-1445
r7
\r
_;l'-
91 _} \_ 5
1363- -1385
17------,. r 4
,ir ,-oo
~~IO
O> ,_ ~II)~
Exhibit 9: Cumulative Traffic Without Project AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes • 1845 Oak Road traffic impact Study
20 CVR-22-002 e
Not to Scale
561

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 IMPROVEMEl'ffS
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.
e CVR-22-002
27 562
Table 9
Intersection Analysis - Cumulative Traffic Plus Project Traffic (CWP) Conditions

CNP CWP
Intersection
Control Peak Conditions Conditions Change Impact?
Type Hour ICU/Delay
1 LOS ICU/Delay
1 LOS
AM 0.457 A 0.460 A 0.003 No
1 Yosemite Avenue E Los Angeles Avenue Signal
PM 0.644 B 0.649 B 0.005 No
AM 18.1 C 18.7 C 0.6 No
2 Oak Road E Los Angeles Avenue owsc
PM 34.3 D 35.2 E 0.9 No
AM 24.8 C 25.6 D 0.8 No
3 Shunk Road E Los Angeles Avenue TWSC
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 6
th 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).
e CVR-22-002
28 563

AM PEAK HOUR
Yosemite Avenue/
E Los Angeles Avenue
Oak Road/
E Los Angeles Avenue
Shunk Road/
E Los Angeles Avenue
0 /
.,;l~
157 _j \_ 315
437 - - 552
63 °'. r 71
,1r
O><ON
<">-<J> --N 0
0 o-1n
819 -
3\
-925
rs
\r
-<O
sro"'
-<'>"'
:,:,.,

PM PEAK HOUR
Yosemite Avenue/
E Los Angeles Avenue
Oak Road/
E Los Angeles Avenue
0 0 /
.,;l~
39 _j \_ 12
760 - - 809
23 °'. r 7
,1r
NNCO
""'"' -mo
N-<'> 0
.,;1~
349 _j \_ 220
1130- -1142
153 °'. r 101
,1r
1472-
14 \
-1449
r.11
Shunk Road/
E Los Angeles Avenue
\r
0/ ~ ... ,.,
.,;l~
91 _j \_ 5
1365 - -1389
25 °'. r 8
,fr ,-..o_
~~LI')
~ a, g:11)~
Exhibit 10: Cumulative Traffic Plus Project Traffic Project AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes • 1845 Oak Rood rroffic impact Study
23 CVR-22-002 e
Not to Scale
564
EXHIBIT 3

TREE REPORT
565

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
566
567 EXHIBIT 3
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
EXHIBIT 4

NOISE IMPACT STUDY
592
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: 01632203_ Memo
August 5, 2024
City Ventures
Eric Miller
3121 Michaelson Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92555
Subject: 1845 Oak Road Residential Development – Evaluation of Changes to Noise Impact Study, City of Simi Valley, CA
Dear Mr. Miller:

MD Acoustics, LLC (MD) has completed an evaluation of the impacts of updating the site plan for the Noise Impact Study for the proposed 1845 Oak Road Residential Project located at 1845 Oak Road in Simi Valley, California. The project proposes to develop 70 homes on a 3.61-acre site. Plan 1 will have 10 units with 1 bedroom and 1 bathroom (725 SF). Plan 2 will have 2 units with 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms (1,385 SF).

Plan 3 will have 28 units with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms (1,525 SF). Plan 4 will have 30 units with 4 bedrooms and 3.5 bathrooms (1,710 SF). There will be 168 parking spaces (2.5 spaces per home).

The report was completed in their most recent version on August 29, 2022. The analyses were performed using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model and were based on the distances from the roadways to the closest residential building. Since the submittal, the site plan layout has been changed to the February 26, 2024 version, per the project applicant. The new site plan would have the same distances from the roadways to the closest residential building as the previous layout. Therefore, the Noise Impact Study based on August 29, 2022, will not change due to the site plan layout change, and the project impact will be less than significant.

Additionally, the project proposes to install HVAC equipment on the rooftop and backyards of the different residential buildings. The sound power of a typical HVAC equipment is around 80 dB for residential use.

Also, the equipment will be shielded from the line of sight of any off-site receiver by parapet walls for the rooftop units or screening walls for backyard units. Considering these assumptions, the noise level from the equipment is estimated to be between 32 to 38 dBA at the off-site receivers. Therefore, the HVAC noise level is assumed to have no impact on external receivers as they will be masked by the ambient noise level.

Finally, a noise measurement from a sample residential HVAC equipment is attached for your reference.

MD is pleased to provide this focused Evaluation of Changes to the Noise Impact Study. If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please don’t hesitate to call us at (805) 426-4477.

Sincerely,
MD Acoustics, LLC
Francisco Irarrazabal, INCE-USA
Acoustical Consultant
593 EXHIBIT 4
Project: Sound Library
Job Number: 0000-2020-02
Site Address/Locaon: Residenal
Date: 07/02/2020
Field Tech/Engineer: Robert Pearson
Source/System: Day & Night N4A5
General Locaon: Measured @ 10'
Sound Meter: NTi XL2 SN: NA
Sengs: A-weighted, fast, 1-sec, 60-sec duraon
Meteorological Cond.: Clear sky - Morning
Table 1: Summary Measurement Data
Figure 1: Day & Night N4A5 Acousc Spectrum - Day & Night N4A5 Site Observaons:

Measured @ 10'
Leq Lmin Lmax

64.9 0.0 0.0
Ln 2 Ln 8 Ln 25 Ln 50 Ln 90 Ln 99

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Source/System Overall Source Overall
dB(A)
3rd Octave Band Data (dBA)
20 25 31.5 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1k 1.25k1.6k 2k 2.5k 3.15k 4k 5k 6.3k 8k 10k 12.5k16k 20k Day & Night N4A5 HVAC 64.9 7.3 13.0 18.0 29.0 23.0 29.0 42.0 43.0 45.0 49.0 47.0 50.0 46.0 49.0 54.0 56.0 57.0 56.0 56.0 54.0 51.0 51.0 49.0 46.0 45.0 43.0 41.0 38.0 35.0 32.0 30.0 594
EXHIBIT 5
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL #2

SUMMARY
595

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
596
NC 15/07-24(ngb)
Development Review Summary
Neighborhood Council No: 2
NC Meeting Date: July 9, 2024
Project No(s): GPA-2022-0001, Z-S-2022-0003, PD-S-2022-0012, TT-2022- 0003, AHA-2022-0002
Project Description: Review of a request for a Planned Development Permit, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Tentative Tract Map, to change the General Plan land use from General Commercial and Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, change the zoning from Commercial Planned Development (CPD) and Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential High Density (RH) in order to construct a new 70-unit, 3-story multi-family residential condominium development, and an Affordable
Housing Agreement at 1845 Oak Road
Case Planner: Elizabeth Richardson
Audience members asked questions and made comments relating to: Traffic, parking, driveway width, Home Owners Association (HOA), elevators, and tree removal.

The applicant responded to the above as follows: No additional turn lanes were required by the City-approved traffic study. The Home Owners Association (HOA) fees will be market rate for the residential condominiums owners. The HOA maintains paint, structural insurance, and landscaping. HOA parking requirements will be in the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R’s). Parking is provided on site. Eighteen units will have 2-car driveways leading to 2-car garages. The smaller driveways will measure 11 feet by 20 feet. Three story units will have stairs inside the privately owned unit; no elevators. 35 trees will be removed. No oak trees will be removed.

Executive Board members asked questions and made comments relating to: Noise and vibration from fire station, type of windows to deal with continual emergency vehicle activity, number of bedrooms, traffic, speed bumps, stop signs, waivers and bonuses, parking for each unit, driveway width and length, stormwater drainage, storm drain pump responsibility, how pumps will handle a deluge of rain, parapet design, HOA and CC&R’s, number of affordable housing units, price of units, solar and batteries, the possibility of units being rented, and concerns raised about traffic with the addition of 70 units.

The applicant responded to the above as follows: The project will have dual pane windows. The acoustic study was completed and accepted by the City. The City-approved traffic study found traffic is unlikely to change with the addition of this project. The project will expand the width of Oak Road. No speed bumps will be added. There will be a slowdown sign at the end of Oak Road. Ten affordable housing units are included in project.

The waivers include reduced setbacks from property lines, reduced setbacks between 597 EXHIBIT 5

NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY
2 NC 15/07-24(ngb)
buildings, reduced landscaping, and reduced garage width standards. Parking is on-site, not on street, and includes one and two-car garages, driveway, and parallel parking.

Parking is exceeding City standards. There will be 21 guest parking spots. Garages for one-bedroom units will be 11 feet by 20 feet. Eighteen units will have two-car driveways with two-car garages. Applicant stated pumps are the best design for stormwater drainage and are commonly used. The pump design will improve current conditions where stormwater collects in the southwest portion of the site. An emergency backup system is included in the design. The HOA will be responsible for the pumps and will be included in the CC&Rs. Units will be market rate at the time of availability, excluding the ten affordable units. The three-and-a-half-foot tall parapet will cover the air conditioning units reducing the sound and visibility. These are owner-occupied units. The CC&R’s will address longterm and short-term leases. Solar is included for all units.

Upon conclusion of the discussion, the following motion was made by Douglas Robertson and seconded by Theresa Ramirez.

MOTION: Recommend approval for a Planned Development Permit, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Tentative Tract Map, to change the General Plan land use from General
Commercial and Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, change the zoning from Commercial Planned
Development (CPD) and Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential High Density (RH) in order to construct a new 70-unit, 3-story multifamily residential condominium development, and an Affordable Housing Agreement
Executive Board vote: 4 Ayes; 2 Noes; 1 Abstention
Audience vote: 0 Ayes; 2 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Unincorporated Area vote: None
The motion carried.
598

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM

SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA ITEM NO.
11 .A .1.

August 21, 2024
TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Planning Colssion
Sean Gibson, eputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner

SUPPLEMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM TO

CONSIDER A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, TO

CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM

GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO

HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPM~NT (CPD) AND

RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RM) TO RESIDENTIAL HIGH
DENSITY (RH), IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 70-UNIT, 3 STORY

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH

AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
INCENTIVES; AND ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN.

In response to the Staff Report prepared for the above agenda item, the Planning Division received three comment letters from City Ventures (Applicant) and Cox Castle (Applicant Attorney). Letter 1 from the Applicant is regarding comments to the Staff Report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 1 ). Letter 2 from the Applicant is a summary of the Storm drain pump (Exhibit 2). Letter 3 from Applicant Attorney is regarding the history of the project regarding the site drainage (Exhibit 3). Staff is responding to a number of the comments as outlined below:

Exhibit 1
• Comment: Pg. 5- Table 2- Plan Type Mix. Plan 2 should be updated from 1,285 sq ft to 1,385 sq ft.

Staff Response: Staff acknowledges the typo in the staff report and will correct in future staff reports.
• Comment: Pg 10- Figure 7 & 8- Typical Building Elevations. This is an outdated elevation and does not match the set that was presented to the District 2 Neighborhood Council.

Staff Response: Staff acknowledges the incorrect elevations were include in the staff report. However, the correct exhibits are attached in Exhibit 1 to the Staff Report.

S-1
GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 1 (mg) 599
• Comment: Pg. 22 - Res. No SVPC 09-2024 - Letter K: The subdivision design will not cause any serious public health problems so we feel this should be removed altogether. The maintenance agreement which will include provisions on continual maintenance, repair, and replacement of project facilities is meant to provide the City added assurances, not to prevent public health problems.

Staff Response: The finding being made in letter K is that approval of the Tentative Map will not cause serious public health problems because it will be served by sewer, water utilities, police, and fire and that condition B-11 will require maintenance of all facilities onsite. The final sentence is a conclusion statement to the finding. • Comment: Vesting Tentative Map Conditions - Public Work Conditions B-20:

Permittee is only responsible for the design & construction on our property. To avoid any confusion in the future, we'd like this condition to read - "Permittee must design the reciprocal access road, on the subject property only, to 1807 Oak Road with a 30- foot width, as per plan".

Staff Response: The condition will be revised to clarify improvements are only required to the southern property line.

Revised:

B-20 Permittee must design Oak Road to be a reciprocal access road from E.

Los Angeles Avenue to the southerly property line of the project site with a 30-foot width, as per plan.
• Comment: Environmental Mitigation Monitoring Conditions 1-2: Can the condition be changed to the following, "Before initiating of any ground disturbing activities, Permittee must pay a monitoring mitigation fee of $3,473.45". It makes more sense to pay this fee prior to any work in the field rather than zoning clearance.

Staff Response: Condition will be revised to strike "or issuance of a Zoning Clearance, whichever comes first."
Revised:
1-2 Before initiation of any ground disturbing activities, Permittee must pay a mitigation monitoring fee of $3,473.45.
• Comment: PD-S-2022-0012: Planning Division A-17: Permittee has not received a copy or draft of the Affordable Housing Agreement so it's hard for us to agree to this condition at this time. Is a draft available for our review? Is this meant to be a blanket statement?
Staff Response: The Affordable Housing Agreement is not a part of the Planning Commissions review and therefor the agreement will be available as part of the City Council staff report. The condition is an assumption that the Agreement will be finalized concurrent with the City Council meeting for the project.

S-2
GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 1 (mg) 600
• Comment: A-18: This condition is incorrect. Our Affordable Housing Agreement# is 2022-0002. Condition should read "ten townhome units for occupancy by qualified moderate-income households, as specified by the Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA-2022-0002) ".

Staff Response: Staff recognizes the incorrect case number is included in Condition A18 and will correct this in the City Council resolution.

Revised:
*A-18 Permittee must execute an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City for a term of 45 years that must reserve 10 one-bedroom condominium units for occupancy by qualified moderate-income households, as specified by the Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA-2022-0002) as approved by the City Council.
• Comment: PD-S-2022-0012: Pubic Works - General 8-6: Can we add "City agrees to issue a TCO to move buyers in phase by phase or building by building prior to final certificate of occupancy". Permittee wants confirmation that homeowners will be able to move in prior to the final certificate of occupancy.

Staff Response: Building and Safety will issue final inspections on all of the buildings up to the 70
th unit before condition B-6 will be enforced.
• Comment: PD-S-2022-0012: Pubic Works- Grading & Drainage B-13: The proposed project includes adequate downstream drainage facilities, so no water acceptance deed or easement is needed. This section of the condition should be removed.

Staff Response: Public Works is not acceptable to modifying this condition. • Comment: PD-S-2022-0012: Pubic Works - Traffic B-25: Repeat comment from VTM Public Works (820). Permittee is only responsible for the design & construction on our property. To avoid any confusion in the future, we'd like this condition to read - "Permittee must design the reciprocal access road, on the subject property only, to 1807 Oak Road with a 30-foot width, as per plan"
Staff Response: The condition can updated to confirm improvements are only required up to the southern property line.

Revised Condition:

B-25 Permittee must construct Oak Road to be a reciprocal access road from E.

Los Angeles Avenue to the southerly property line of the project site with a 30-foot width, as per plan.
• Comment: PD-S-2022-0012: Public Works - Sanitation B-29 & B-30: Sewer connection fees should be paid at Certificate of Occupancy as that's when the impact occurs, not at building permit
S-3
GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 1 (mg) 601
Staff Response: The applicant may present State law provisions to the Public Works Department that could allow fees to be paid closer to completion of the property. • Comment: PD-S-2022-0012: Public Works - Golden State Water B-33: Condition is too subjective. It was the city who decided the project was to be served by Golden State Water, not Permittee. Condition should read, "Permittee and City will assist Golden State Water Company (GSWC) with their application to the California Public Utilities Commission in order to annex the western portion of the development into the GSWC service area"
Staff Response: Applicant is encouraged to reach out to Golden State Water to clarify the requirements of this condition.
• Comment: PO-S-2022-0012: Landscaping Conditions C-3: Disregard previous comment, this Condition is okay. Permittee will work with the Environmental Services Director to obtain a Tree Removal Permit in order to remove all trees onsite per the Tree Report
Staff Response: Applicants comment on this item is noted. • Comment: PO-S-2022-0012: Rancho Simi and Recreation Parks District. E-1: Park Land Dedication I In-lieu fees should be paid at Certificate of Occupancy as that's when the impact occurs, not at zoning clearance issuance Staff Response: Applicant is encouraged to contact the Rancho Simi Recreation and Parks District to discuss alternative timelines for payment of fees. • Comment: Mitigation Monitoring Program - The mitigation measures are agreed upon but there are a lot of discrepancies with "When the Monitoring Occurs". Most of the monitoring can't happen until grading or construction begins but the note reads, "Before PW Director issues grading permit".
- GEO1: Updated to During DEMO.
- GEO 2 - 4: Updated to During Grading.
- GEO 6: Updated to During Construction
- NO/-1: Updated to During Construction
- NO/-2: Updated to Prior to Building Permit. Noise study can also be referenced ahead of time.
- TCR1-2: Grading Plans will include a note committing to this requirement. - /-17: Updated to Before and ground disturbing activities.

Staff Response: The mitigation measures for the MND require notes to be placed on the grading plans prior to issuing grading permits. Mitigation 1-17 can be revised for the fees to be paid prior to issuing the grading permit.

S-4
GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 1 (mg) 602
Revised Condition:
(Mitigation Measure 1-17 and PD Condition 1-2)
1-2 Before initiation of any ground disturbing activities, Permittee must pay a mitigation monitoring fee of $3,473.45
Exhibit 2
Comment: The letter from the applicant describes the operation of the proposed storm drain design and pump.

Staff Response: Refer to the attached Public Works Memorandum and annotated applicant letter (Exhibit 4).

Exhibit 3
Comment: City Ventures submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by C& V Consulting, Inc. to the City in early March. The Preliminary Drainage Report recommended a pump system to be incorporated into the Project. C& V Consulting determined that the pump system would be a sound engineering design that would not result in impacts to any neighboring properties.

Staff Response: The Applicant has not provided any detail on the pump system for Public Works review except the statement that one would be provided.

Comment: On March 19th, the City sent a letter to City Ventures that said absent a recorded stormwater discharge easement or agreement between City Ventures and the neighbor south of the Project site, the Project may result in unmitigated impacts to the southerly adjacent neighbor.

Staff Response: Concur.

Comment: On April 17th, I sent a letter to the City on behalf of City Ventures addressing several comments in the City's March 19th letter. The April 17th letter noted that water would not be directed to the property south of the Project site except in an emergency (less than 1% chance) scenario, and that based on California law, City Ventures' pump system design is reasonable and incorporates reasonable measures to prevent downstream property damage.

Staff Response: Refer to Exhibit 4 for staff's response.

Comment: In late April, City Ventures understood the City's concern with the proposed drainage system to be potential liability to the City, and agreed to indemnify the City for any unlikely but potential issues related to the Project's drainage.

Staff Response: Refer to Exhibit 4 for staff's response.

S-5
GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 1 (mg) 603
Comment: Further, both Option A and Option B would violate the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code §65589.5) ("HAA'?. There are no feasible options to explore with respect to surrounding owners or "traditional engineering approaches" such as channels or gravity storm drain systems. As such, Option A would function as an effective denial of the Project. Option B would result in an outright recommendation of denial of the Project.

Staff Response: The project is not subject to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) as the General Plan and Zoning designations are not in place for the proposed project, pursuant to Government Code 65589.5 U)(1 ). Subsection U)(1) reads as follows:

U) (1) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1 ), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

Since the proposed High Density General Plan Land Use and Residential High Density Zoning designations are not in place, the project is not subject to HAA.

Comment: The HAA requires the City to process "housing development projects" in conformance with specific procedures. The Project is a multifamily residential condominium development that qualifies under the HAA as a "housing development project" and is thus subject to the protections of the HAA.

Staff Response: The project is not subject to the Housing Accountability Act as the General Plan and Zoning designations are not in place for the proposed project, pursuant to Government Code 65589.5 U)(1 ).

Comment: Subdivision 0) of the HAA prohibits the City from denying a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective standards unless the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate that impact.

S-6
GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 1 (mg) 604
Staff Response: The project is not subject to the Housing Accountability Act as the General Plan and Zoning designations are not in place for the proposed project, pursuant to Government Code 65589.5 U)(1 ).

Comment: The suggestion in the description of Option B that Planning Commission could rely on potential health and safety impacts or GPA or Zone Change findings as a basis for denial of the Project when the true reason for denial of the project is the drainage issue would skirt the mandate of Government Code §65589.S(j).

Staff Response: Government Code §65589.50) is not applicable because the project site currently does not comply with the required General Plan or Zoning designations for the subject project.

Attachments:

Exhibit 1 - City Ventures "Staff Report/Conditions Approval - City Ventures Comments" received August 20, 2024
Exhibit 2 - City Ventures "1845 Oak Road Simi Valley, CA 93063 - Storm Drain Design" dated August 19, 2024
Exhibit 3 - Cox Castle "Agenda Item No. 11.A.1 - 1845 Oak Road" dated August 20, 2024
Exhibit 4: - Public Works Memorandum dated August 21, 2024 with Annotated letter from Applicant
S-7
GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 1 (mg) 605
Staff Report / Conditions of Approval – City Ventures Comments Pg. 5 – Table 2 – Plan Type Mix
• Plan 2 should be updated from 1,285 sq ft to 1,385 sq ft.

Pg 10 – Figure 7 & 8 – Typical Building Elevations
• This is an outdated elevation and does not match the set that was presented to the District 2 Neighborhood Council.

Pg. 22 – Res. No SVPC 09-2024
• Letter K: The subdivision design will not cause any serious public health problems so we feel this should be removed altogether. The maintenance agreement which will include provisions on continual maintenance, repair, and replacement of project facilities is meant to provide the City added assurances, not to prevent public health problems.

Vesting Tentative Map Conditions – Public Work Conditions • B-20: Permittee is only responsible for the design & construction on our property. To avoid any confusion in the future, we’d like this condition to read – “Permittee must design the reciprocal access road, on the subject property only, to 1807 Oak Road with a 30-foot width, as per plan”.

Environmental Mitigation Monitoring Conditions
• I-2: Can the condition be changed to the following, “Before initiating of any ground disturbing activities, Permittee must pay a monitoring mitigation fee of $3,473.45”. It makes more sense to pay this fee prior to any work in the field rather than zoning clearance.

PD-S-2022-0012: Planning Division
606 EXHIBIT 1
• A-17: Permittee has not received a copy or draft of the Affordable Housing Agreement so it’s hard for us to agree to this condition at this time. Is a draft available for our review? Is this meant to be a blanket statement?
• A-18: This condition is incorrect. Our Affordable Housing Agreement # is 2022-0002. Condition should read "ten townhome units for occupancy by qualified moderate-income households, as specified by the Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA-2022-0002)".

PD-S-2022-0012: Pubic Works – General
• B-6: Can we add “City agrees to issue a TCO to move buyers in phase by phase or building by building prior to final certificate of occupancy”. Permittee wants confirmation that homeowners will be able to move in prior to the final certificate of occupancy.

PD-S-2022-0012: Pubic Works – Grading & Drainage
• B-13: The proposed project includes adequate downstream drainage facilities, so no water acceptance deed or easement is needed. This section of the condition should be removed.

PD-S-2022-0012: Pubic Works – Traffic
• B-25: Repeat comment from VTM Public Works (B20).
• Permittee is only responsible for the design & construction on our property. To avoid any confusion in the future, we’d like this condition to read – “Permittee must design the reciprocal access road, on the subject property only, to 1807 Oak Road with a 30-foot width, as per plan”.

PD-S-2022-0012: Public Works – Sanitation
• B-29 & B-30: Sewer connection fees should be paid at Certificate of Occupancy as that’s when the impact occurs, not at building permit.

PD-S-2022-0012: Public Works – Golden State Water
• B-33: Condition is too subjective. It was the city who decided the project was to be served by Golden State Water, not Permittee. Condition should read, “Permittee and City will assist Golden State Water Company (GSWC) with their application to the California Public Utilities Commission in order to annex the western portion of the development into the GSWC service area”.

PD-S-2022-0012: Landscaping Conditions
• C-3: Disregard previous comment, this Condition is okay. Permittee will work with the Environmental Services Director to obtain a Tree Removal Permit in order to remove all trees onsite per the Tree Report.

PD-S-2022-0012: Rancho Simi and Recreation Parks District • E-1: Park Land Dedication / In-lieu fees should be paid at Certificate of Occupancy as that’s when the impact occurs, not at zoning clearance issuance.
607
Mitigation Monitoring Program - The mitigation measures are agreed upon but there are a lot of discrepancies with “When the Monitoring Occurs”. Most of the monitoring can’t happen until grading or construction begins but the note reads, “Before PW Director issues grading permit”. • GEO1: Updated to During DEMO.
• GEO 2 – 4: Updated to During Grading.
• GEO 6: Updated to During Construction
• NOI-1: Updated to During Construction
• NOI-2: Updated to Prior to Building Permit. Noise study can also be referenced ahead of time. • TCR1-2: Grading Plans will include a note committing to this requirement. • I-17: Updated to Before and ground disturbing activities. 608
City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
City Ventures Construction, Inc
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92612
August 19, 2024
Re: 1845 Oak Road Simi Valley, CA 93063 – Storm Drain Design To Whom It May Concern:

The current site partially drains to the southeast, down Oak Road, with the rest of the site ponding in the southwest corner. This has been corroborated by the neighbor to the south (1807 Oak Road) who has acknowledged/confirmed that water seeps through the wall and enters his backyard during rain events. Additionally, the Ventura County Fire Department has previously intervened by creating drainage holes along the western wall to alleviate water buildup during storms. Without redevelopment, these drainage problems will persist unresolved.

City Ventures proposes to redevelop the site and, in all cases, improve the current conditions relative to storm drain. City Ventures has designed a storm drain system and solution that has been successfully implemented in other municipalities and complies with the City of Simi Valley’s regulations and all health and safety codes. This system will not only enhance the site's drainage but also exonerate the City of any future liability associated with the development or the system.

The proposed storm drain design will reduce the amount of water that drains to the southwest corner of the site, and then manage that water to improve drainage and protect against any impacts. The system includes a private pump system engineered for operational reliability. The system will capture and treat stormwater from the southern half of the site through underground piping and then discharge it onto Oak Road, where it will continue flowing to the south. This is a redundant system that includes dual pumps to minimize the risk of malfunction. Every time there is a rain event, the system will switch over to the next pump so one is not working harder than the other. If there is 30 days without any rain, the system automatically cycles through to keep the pumps fresh and to avoid clogging. If, for whatever reason, one of the pumps does not turn on, the other pump is instantly triggered to turn on. There will also be emergency backup powersource provided to ensure the pumps are continuously working in the event of a power outage.

Within the last 1-2 years, City Ventures has successfully designed and built projects with a similar stormwater pump system in cities such as Long Beach, Commerce, El Cajon, Morgan Hill, and Novato. 609 EXHIBIT 2
This future community will be managed by a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) management company with annual budgets and reserves allocated for 3rd party inspections, maintenance, and repairs of the system. Furthermore, as requested by the City’s Public Works Director, City Ventures will be providing an operations and maintenance manual and an emergency operations plan that meets the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. These plans will ensure that inspections, maintenance, repair and replacement of the stormwater facilities are carried out effectively. All stormwater systems need maintenance to properly treat and manage storm water. This system is no different.

If the above-described system did not pump water, water would simply drain as it currently does in its undeveloped state into open space to the south. This flow would be at a lower rate than its current condition, thus reducing impacts.

To minimize any impact to neighboring properties, the design includes a storm drain stub at the southern property line on Oak Road, allowing for a connection point if the properties to the south are developed in the future and if the southern property owner wants to develop that area as opposed to leaving it open. This allows for full development of the southern property. The City does have the ability to add a condition of approval to any proposed development to the south to ensure this connection happens, should it so desire.

Addressing concerns about future liability, City Ventures has reached an agreement with the City of Simi Valley’s attorney to indemnify the City from any potential future claims. To take it one step further, at the request of the City’s attorney, each future homeowner will be responsible separately and jointly for indemnifying the city. City Ventures shares a mutual goal with the City that the stormwater pump system operates as designed to avoid any issues with the managing HOA.

In conclusion, our proposed storm drain system represents a significant enhancement of the current drainage issues, effectively addressing the longstanding problems with the existing site conditions, and ultimately preventing future water accumulation. By implementing this system, City Ventures will provide a reliable and efficient solution that resolves the existing drainage concerns while also aligning with the best practices in storm water management. This proactive approach ensures a lasting improvement to the site’s conditions while protecting the community against future drainage issues.

If you should have any questions, please contact me at 909-996-8585 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Eric Miller
Director of development
City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC
610
104900\17940791v2

www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92612-5678
P: 949.260.4600 F: 949.260.4699
Morgan L. Gallagher
949.260.4674
[email protected]
August 20, 2024
City of Simi Valley Planning Commissioners
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Re: Agenda Item No. 11.A.1 – 1845 Oak Road
Dear Planning Commissioners:

This firm represents City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC (“City Ventures”), the applicant of the proposed residential project at 1845 Oak Road in the City of Simi Valley, which is Item No. 11.A.1 on Wednesday’s Planning Commission agenda (GPA 2022-0001/Z-S-2022-0003, PD-S-2022-0012/VTT-2024-0001/AHA-2022-0002) (“Project”). The purpose of this letter is to urge you to recommend approval of the Project pursuant to Staff Report “Option C” (Page 13 of the Staff Report).

As you will see on Pages 12-13 of the Staff Report, staff’s opinion is that the Project’s pump system should only be permitted as a last resort. However, Staff presents three options and the only option the can be legally approved with respect to the drainage issue is Option C.

The following is a summary of the background on the Project’s site drainage issue:
 City Ventures submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by C&V Consulting, Inc. to the City in early March. The Preliminary Drainage Report recommended a pump system to be incorporated into the Project. C&V Consulting determined that the pump system would be a sound engineering design that would not result in impacts to any neighboring properties.  On March 19th, the City sent a letter to City Ventures that said absent a recorded stormwater discharge easement or agreement between City Ventures and the neighbor south of the Project site, the Project may result in unmitigated impacts to the southerly adjacent neighbor.
 On April 17th, I sent a letter to the City on behalf of City Ventures addressing several comments in the City’s March 19th letter. The April 17th letter noted that water would not be directed to the property south of the Project site except in an emergency (less than 1% chance) scenario, and that based on California law, City 611 EXHIBIT 3
104900\17940791v2
August 20, 2024

Page 2 ends

Ventures’ pump system design is reasonable and incorporates reasonable measures to prevent downstream property damage.
 In late April, City Ventures understood the City’s concern with the proposed drainage system to be potential liability to the City, and agreed to indemnify the City for any unlikely but potential issues related to the Project’s drainage.  On April 26th, City Staff and the City Attorney agreed that the indemnification language was acceptable and would be incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval for the Project. The City also deemed the Project complete on April 26th.

City Ventures has been working very hard with Staff to come to a resolution on the drainage issue and believes that an indemnification of the City will remedy any concerns the City may have about the proposed pump system.

Further, both Option A and Option B would violate the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code §65589.5) (“HAA”). There are no feasible options to explore with respect to surrounding owners or “traditional engineering approaches” such as channels or gravity storm drain systems. As such, Option A would function as an effective denial of the Project. Option B would result in an outright recommendation of denial of the Project.

The HAA requires the City to process “housing development projects” in conformance with specific procedures. The Project is a multifamily residential condominium development that qualifies under the HAA as a “housing development project” and is thus subject to the protections of the HAA.

Subdivision (j) of the HAA prohibits the City from denying a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective standards unless the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate that impact. The City does not have an objective standard prohibiting private pump systems.

Further, the City has not identified a valid public health or safety concern with City Ventures’ proposed private pump system.

There is no evidence that the pump system poses health or safety concerns. In addition to C&V Consulting’s professional conclusion that the pump system satisfies applicable regulations and is a sound engineering solution, the Staff Report does not identify any health or safety concern, and states that the pump system would be designed in accordance with standards and would be fully reliable, even during emergencies:
 “As proposed by the developer, the pump system is required to be designed with all necessary equipment for emergency operation such as generator’s and other emergency back-up.” (Staff Report, Page 12.)
612
104900\17940791v2
August 20, 2024

Page 3 ends

 “As the facility must function during all storm events, and be fully reliable even in emergencies such as unpredictable power outages during heavy rain events, a careful review of the design by the City would occur during the formal plan review process to ensure is was as reliable as possible should this option be approved.” (Staff report, Page 12-13.)
In addition, the Staff Report notes that the pump system is a design approach, as opposed to an engineering best practice or objective requirement, on Page 13 (“[T]he proposed stormwater drainage system is an undesirable design approach for the project.” (Emphasis added.).)
The suggestion in the description of Option B that Planning Commission could rely on potential health and safety impacts or GPA or Zone Change findings as a basis for denial of the Project when the true reason for denial of the project is the drainage issue would skirt the mandate of Government Code §65589.5(j). As a reminder, violations of the HAA are mandatory and in addition to fines, attorney’s fees can be awarded if a Court finds that a city acted in bad faith.

For the foregoing reasons, City Ventures urges the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Project pursuant to Option C. We appreciate your consideration of this issue and look forward to collaboratively working with the City on this Project.

Sincerely,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
Morgan L. Gallagher
Cc: Elizabeth Richardson, City of Simi Valley
Sean Gibson, City of Simi Valley
Karl Burger, City Attorney’s Office ([email protected]) 613
614 EXHIBIT 4
615
616
617
618
619

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
SECOND

SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA ITEM NO.

11. A.1.

August 21, 2024
TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Planning Com
1 i~ion
Sean Gibson~uty Environmental Services Director/City Planner

SUPPLEMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM TO

CONSIDER A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, TO

CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM

GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO

HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION

FROM COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CPD) AND

RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RM) TO RESIDENTIAL HIGH
DENSITY (RH), IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 70-UNIT, 3 STORY

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH

AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
INCENTIVES; AND ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN.

In response to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the project, comment letters were received from the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (Exhibit 1) and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 1 - Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

1. 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).

Staff Response: A revised AQMP consistency discussion can be found below:

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.

S-1
GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 2 (mg) 620
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 long-term operation of the project. Therefore, as the project is for residential 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.
1 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 VCAPCD Attainment Plans, impacts are considered to be less than significant.

2. Item 2- Nonattainment status, Page 19. Please also add PM10 as a state nonattainment status for Ventura County.

Staff Response: The Air Quality section of the MND will be updated to address the PM 10 comment.

3. 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.

Staff Response: Comment noted that a permit will be required for a diesel engine over 50 HP.

4. 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.

S-2
GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 2 (mg) 621
Staff Response: The Air Quality modeling of 70 units is a more conservative number of units than the 65 units identified in the Traffic Study and a reduced unit count would decrease the air pollution emissions generated by vehicular traffic. The proposed project is not in violation of Air Quality emissions associated with vehicular traffic using 70 units in the model and the disparity of five units in the modeling does not change the impacts identified in the IS/MND.

5. 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 ROCNOC 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.

Staff Response: The Air Quality modeling is being revised to address this comment.

6. 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.

Staff Response: The Air Quality modeling of 70 units is a more conservative number of units than the 65 units identified in the Traffic Study and a reduced unit count would decrease the air pollution emissions generated by vehicular traffic. The proposed project is not in violation of Air Quality emissions associated with vehicular traffic using 70 units in the model and the disparity of five units in the modeling does not change the impacts identified in the IS/MND.

7. 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.

Staff Response: Additional analysis will be added to the Final IS/MND to address this comment.

Exhibit 2: California Department of Toxic Substances Control

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 zoning is changing from Commercial to Residential. Furthermore, there is no history of soil testing S-3
GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 2 (mg) 622
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 lnbox.

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 addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC's PEA Guidance Manual Staff Response to #1, #2 and #3: The Project Applicant will comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations for the transport, storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials and waste. Any imported soil and fill material would be tested for hazardous materials and handled in compliance with the DTSC's PEA Guidance Manual.

Attachments:

Exhibit 1 - Ventura County Air Pollution Control District "Request for Review for Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Oaks Road Residential Project (RMA-24-021 )", dated August 19, 2024
Exhibit 2 - Department of Toxic Substances Control "Mitigated Negative Declaration for the MND
S-4
GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 2 (mg) 623

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, 624 EXHIBIT 1
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].
625

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 626 EXHIBIT 2
Elizabeth Richardson
August 7, 2024

Page 2 ends

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.

Page 3 ends

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]
628
Elizabeth Richardson
August 7, 2024

Page 4 ends

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]
629

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
THIRD

SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA ITEM NO.
11 .A .1.

August 21, 2024
TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Planning Comrmsion
Sean Gibson~uty Environmental Services Director/City Planner

SUPPLEMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM TO

CONSIDER A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, TO

CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM

GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO

HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION

FROM COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CPD) AND

RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RM) TO RESIDENTIAL HIGH
DENSITY (RH), IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 70-UNIT, 3-STORY

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH

AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
INCENTIVES; AND ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN; LOCATED AT 1845 OAK ROAD.

In response to the staff report prepared for the above agenda item, the Planning Division has also received the following correspondence (attached).

1. Email correspondence letter from Jackson Piper, dated August 20, 2024 (Exhibit 1 ).

2. Email correspondence letter from Sal Provenza, Manager of Oak Road South Owners LLC, dated August 20, 2024 (Exhibit 2).

3. Email correspondence letter from Andrew Graves, dated August 20, 2024 (Exhibit 3).

Attachments:

Exhibit 1: Email correspondence letter from Jackson Piper, dated August 20, 2024.

Exhibit 2: Email correspondence letter from Sal Provenza, dated August 20, 2024.

Exhibit 3: Email correspondence letter from Andrew Graves, dated August 20, 2024.

S-1
GPA20220001 ZS20220003 PDS20220012 VTT20220003 AHA20220002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 3 (mg) 630
1 From: Jackson Piper
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 8:56 PM
To: planningcomments
Subject: Item 11.A.1 - City Ventures Homebuilding GPA/Zone Change/Planned Development Permit
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect a phishing attempt please report it as phishing. Learn how.

Dear Simi Valley Planning Commissioners,
This project will be an excellent re-use of the vacant Phoenix Ranch School site by providing 70 new townhomes for the City's housing stock, including 10 townhomes which will be set aside as affordable to moderate income households. Additionally, this location is within easy walking distance of the restaurants and shops, including a grocery store, at Los Angeles Avenue and Yosemite Avenue, which will allow the new residents to access some daily necessities without having to drive. The developer could opt to provide 44% of the proposed 70 units, or 31 units, as set aside for moderate income households, and would then be able to take advantage of the state's density bonus law to increase the project size by 50 percent to a total of 105 townhomes which would certainly provide more much needed housing for the city and additional much needed moderateincome housing for those who have been otherwise priced out of buying homes in the city; however that would be up to the discretion of the developer and the project, as proposed, is quite worthy of approval as it is. Please recommend that the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Planned Development Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map move forward, and encourage the City Council to get this project built.

Thank you,
Jackson Piper
Co-lead, Ventura County YIMBY
631 EXHIBIT 1
1 From: Zarui Chaparyan
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 1:20 PM
To: Megan Grai; Naren Gunasekera; Elizabeth Richardson
Cc: Sean Gibson
Subject: FW: Simi Valley City Ventures Phoenix School Project Objection Letter Attachments: Simi Valley Letter objecting to City Ventures project design v3 (dph rev).pdf FYI
Sincerely,
Zarui Chaparyan
Associate Planner
Environmental Services
City of Simi Valley
(805) 583Ͳ6774
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This eͲmail message is intended to be received only by persons designated as the intended recipient above, and may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, use, retransmission, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete it completely from your computer system.

From: Curt Crandall
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 1:13 PM
To: Sal Provenza ; Sean Gibson <[email protected]> Cc: Zarui Chaparyan <[email protected]>
Subject: Simi Valley City Ventures Phoenix School Project Objection Letter CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect a phishing attempt please report it as phishing. Learn how.

Sean,
Good afternoon. Please see our attached letter that we would like to make sure is presented and mentioned at the PC meeting. Please let us know if you have any questions. I will also shoot you a call now. Can you confirm receipt of this letter please?
Kind regards,
Curt
CURT CRANDALL, Partner
632 EXHIBIT 2
Date: August 20, 2024
To: City of Simi Valley - Department of Environmental Services Attention: Sean Gibson, AICP, Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner From: Sal Provenza, Manager of Oak Rod South Owners LLC RE: GPA-2022-0001, Z-S-2022-0003, PD-S-2022-0012, VTT-2022-0003, AHA-2022- 0002 at 1845 Oak Road

Dear Mr. Gibson,
I am writing to you today as Manager of Oak Road South Owners LLC (“ORSO”). As you know, ORSO LLC is under contract to purchase 1807, 1801 and 1761 Oak Road, three properties located just south of the proposed City Ventures Homebuilding LLC (“CVH”) project (“CVH Project”). We have been working with staff for over two years and recently submitted a development application (PD-S-2024-0005, GPA-2024-001, Z-S-2024-0003 and TT-2024-0004) to create a townhome subdivision (“ORSO Project”).

While we generally support development of the former Pheonix Ranch School, we do have concerns about the project as designed. Here are a few of the main items that should be addressed before considering any recommendation to the Planning Commission:

1. General Plan Amendment and Zone Change: While we support the change from commercial to residential, increasing the land use density from 3.6 to 5.0 units per acre to 10.1 to 20 units per acre) is too dense and not compatible with the neighborhood. In contrast to our two-story townhomes with room for private open space, CV is proposing three-story homes with no open space at 19.4 units per acre.

This leaves no room for common open space or much needed infrastructure.

2. Oak Tree: The proposed site plan ignores the Oak tree located on 1807 Oak Road and its drip line that extends into the CV Project. It’s important to note that the canopy and branches of this Oak tree are very low and would impede construction of the proposed three-story homes. The canopy/dripline are not shown on the CV Project plans or arborist report, but it appears there are approximately six to eight 633
units in Buildings 7 & Building 8 that encroach into the canopy/dripline. These threestory units will adversely affect the health of the Oak tree on our property and those units should be removed. In short, the CV Project has the potential to damage the Oak tree, resulting in a potential violation of the City’s Mature Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 9-38, et seq.)

3. Drainage: CV’s proposed drainage design includes a privately-owned and maintained pump system to pump water along our northerly property line easterly to an outlet bubbler in Oak Road. We agree with staff that this is an “undesirable design approach” and CV should be required to explore more traditional engineering designs. Starting in September of 2023, ORSO contacted CV to get a copy of their preliminary design so we could review it and its effect on neighboring properties including ours. On August 20, 2024, ORSO reached out to CV again to discuss this issue and our other concerns, but CV has not yet responded. We support “Option A” which contemplates a continuance and provides adequate time for CV to explore more traditional engineering approaches in cooperation with neighboring landowners. Also, we do not support “Option C” because it is not a practical solution; further, the hold harmless agreement would not indemnify the neighbors who would be impacted when the system fails. We respectfully request that the City direct CV to meet and confer with ORSO to address their drainage problem.

4. Reciprocal Easement: In staff’s letter of incompleteness dated October 19, 2022, staff clearly states on page 3 (Public Works item #6) that the “Applicant must provide a 30’ wide reciprocal access road to 1761 Oak Road, the development application for which will be submitted to the city in the future. The design of this access shall be coordinated with the adjacent applicant and the Ventura County Fire Department.” This condition, especially the requirement to coordinate with ORSO and the Fire Department, is intended ensure proper access to the proposed ORSO Project. Based on feedback from the Fire Department, Oak Road and the unnamed road that connects Oak Road to Shunk Road in front of Buildings 9, 10 and 11should be reciprocal access roads. However, when we reviewed the CV Project staff report, we noticed that these requirements for a 30’ wide reciprocal access road to 1761 Oak Road had been omitted. We alerted staff of this unintended omission so they could correct this condition in the supplemental staff report. In the event this is not adequately addressed in the supplemental staff report, ORSO objects to the removal of this pre-existing condition identified by staff nearly two years ago. The reciprocal access roads are critical to the fire/emergency safety of our project and the residents who will eventually live there. 634

5. Other: While the items identified above are critical, we do have additional feedback on the project design that we can provide when we meet with CVH. These less critical items include the location of the affordable units, number and placement of air conditioning condensers along out northerly property line, the irregular planning strip on the easterly edge of Oak Road and the 10’ setbacks along our northerly property line.

Again, we generally support development of the former Pheonix Ranch School, and we believe we can address these concerns if we have an opportunity to meet and find viable solutions that both parties can accept.
635
1 From: Andrew G
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 10:04 PM
To: planningcomments
Subject: Comment for Planning Commission Meeting 08-21-2024 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect a phishing attempt please report it as phishing. Learn how.

Dear Simi Valley Planning Commissioners,
I'm writing to express my support for item 11.A.1 (Zoning change and permitting for the development at 1845 Oak Road). Below are my reasons for supporting this development

1. This project is within 1 mile of the Simi Valley Metrolink station and close to the Arroyo Simi Bike Path, allowing easier alternate mobility options for young families or people who work outside of Simi Valley.

These houses will be walking distance from a nearby grocery store, restaurants and shops, reducing the concern for additional traffic on our streets.

2. These units are being built on mostly vacant land, and our city is in desperate need of additional housing that is not just unaffordable single family homes. People from my generation are finding it impossible to afford homes, and increasing the variety of housing options that we offer in Simi Valley is a good step in the right direction.

3. These units will help the city meet its RHNA goals for the current cycle. (We are still behind) I urge the commissioners to move the General Plan amendment, zone change, and planned development permit forward with encouragement to the city council to get shovels in the ground on this project as soon as possible.

Thank you!
Andrew Graves | MoveVC
636 EXHIBIT 3

Simi Valley City CouncilOctober 7, 2024

Simi Valley City Council
October 7, 2024