Simi Valley City Council
November 18, 2024

353
Logged Dat
a Chart
Simi V
alle
y Design Guidelines and SpeciĮc Plan_Sit
e1: Log
g
ed Da
t
a Chart

354
Site 2: Residence (890 California Avenue)
355
Session Report
8/2/2023
Informat
ion P
anel
Na
me
Simi Va
lley Design Guidelines a
nd Specific Pla
n_Sit
e2
St
a
rt
Time
8/2/2023 1:43:10 PM
St
op Time
8/2/2023 1:58:10 PM
Device Na
me
BHJ050013
Model Type
SoundPro DL
Device Firmwa
re Rev
R.13H
Comment
s
Summary Dat
a P
anel
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Leq
1 53.8 dB
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
1 3 dB
Weight
ing
1 A
Response
1 SLOW
Ba
ndwidt
h
1 OFF
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
2 3 dB
Weight
ing
2 C
Response
2 FAST
Logged Dat
a T
able
Da
t
e/Time
Leq-1
8/2/2023 1:44:10 PM

52.2 1:45:10 PM

51.5 1:46:10 PM

49.7 1:47:10 PM

49.5 1:48:10 PM

49.7 1:49:10 PM
59 1:50:10 PM

56.7 1:51:10 PM

54.9 1:52:10 PM

49.7 1:53:10 PM

55.9 1:54:10 PM

52.9 1:55:10 PM

55.5 1:56:10 PM

52.7 1:57:10 PM

52.3 1:58:10 PM

50.5

356
Logged Dat
a Chart
Simi V
alle
y Design Guidelines and SpeciĮc Plan_Sit
e2: Log
g
ed Da
t
a Chart

357
Site 3: First Street and Easy Street
358
Session Report
8/2/2023
Informat
ion P
anel
Na
me
Simi Va
lley Design Guidelines a
nd Specific Pla
n_Sit
e3
St
a
rt
Time
8/2/2023 1:16:53 PM
St
op Time
8/2/2023 1:31:53 PM
Device Na
me
BHJ050013
Model Type
SoundPro DL
Device Firmwa
re Rev
R.13H
Comment
s
Summary Dat
a P
anel
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Leq
1 67.6 dB
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
1 3 dB
Weight
ing
1 A
Response
1 SLOW
Ba
ndwidt
h
1 OFF
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
2 3 dB
Weight
ing
2 C
Response
2 FAST
Logged Dat
a T
able
Da
t
e/Time
Leq-1
8/2/2023 1:17:53 PM
67 1:18:53 PM

69.5 1:19:53 PM
69 1:20:53 PM

67.4 1:21:53 PM

67.4 1:22:53 PM
66 1:23:53 PM

67.3 1:24:53 PM

66.7 1:25:53 PM

66.7 1:26:53 PM

66.8 1:27:53 PM

65.3 1:28:53 PM

69.6 1:29:53 PM
69 1:30:53 PM

67.4 1:31:53 PM

66.4

359
Logged Dat
a Chart
Simi V
alle
y Design Guidelines and SpeciĮc Plan_Sit
e3: Log
g
ed Da
t
a Chart

360
Site 4: Simi Health Center
361
Session Report
8/2/2023
Informat
ion P
anel
Na
me
Simi Va
lley Design Guidelines a
nd Specific Pla
n_Sit
e4
St
a
rt
Time
8/2/2023 12:42:05 PM
St
op Time
8/2/2023 12:57:05 PM
Device Na
me
BHJ050013
Model Type
SoundPro DL
Device Firmwa
re Rev
R.13H
Comment
s
Summary Dat
a P
anel
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Leq
1 71.6 dB
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
1 3 dB
Weight
ing
1 A
Response
1 SLOW
Ba
ndwidt
h
1 OFF
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
2 3 dB
Weight
ing
2 C
Response
2 FAST
Logged Dat
a T
able
Da
t
e/Time
Leq-1
8/2/2023 12:43:05 PM

74.1 12:44:05 PM
72 12:45:05 PM

72.8 12:46:05 PM

68.9 12:47:05 PM

70.5 12:48:05 PM

71.6 12:49:05 PM

72.7 12:50:05 PM

72.4 12:51:05 PM

73.2 12:52:05 PM

68.5 12:53:05 PM

72.3 12:54:05 PM

66.9 12:55:05 PM

72.4 12:56:05 PM

68.2 12:57:05 PM

71.3

362
Logged Dat
a Chart
Simi V
alle
y Design Guidelines and SpeciĮc Plan_Sit
e4: Log
g
ed Da
t
a Chart

363
Site 5: Residence (1791 Erringer Road)
364
Session Report
8/2/2023
Informat
ion P
anel
Na
me
Simi Va
lley Design Guidelines a
nd Specific Pla
n_Sit
e5
St
a
rt
Time
8/2/2023 12:12:17 PM
St
op Time
8/2/2023 12:27:17 PM
Device Na
me
BHJ050013
Model Type
SoundPro DL
Device Firmwa
re Rev
R.13H
Comment
s
Summary Dat
a P
anel
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Leq
1 69.8 dB
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
1 3 dB
Weight
ing
1 A
Response
1 SLOW
Ba
ndwidt
h
1 OFF
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
2 3 dB
Weight
ing
2 C
Response
2 FAST
Logged Dat
a T
able
Da
t
e/Time
Leq-1
8/2/2023 12:13:17 PM

71.7 12:14:17 PM

68.5 12:15:17 PM

68.8 12:16:17 PM

69.6 12:17:17 PM

70.2 12:18:17 PM

70.2 12:19:17 PM

71.6 12:20:17 PM

67.1 12:21:17 PM
71 12:22:17 PM

66.1 12:23:17 PM

72.1 12:24:17 PM

68.8 12:25:17 PM

68.2 12:26:17 PM

68.4 12:27:17 PM

70.4

365
Logged Dat
a Chart
Simi V
alle
y Design Guidelines and SpeciĮc Plan_Sit
e5: Log
g
ed Da
t
a Chart

366
Site 6: Residence (4257 Alamo Street)
367
Session Report
8/2/2023
Informat
ion P
anel
Na
me
Simi Va
lley Design Guidelines a
nd Specific Pla
n_Sit
e6
St
a
rt
Time
8/2/2023 12:04:15 PM
St
op Time
8/2/2023 12:19:15 PM
Device Na
me
BIJ090032
Model Type
SoundPro DL
Device Firmwa
re Rev
R.13H
Comment
s
Summary Dat
a P
anel
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Leq
1 69.8 dB
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
1 3 dB
Weight
ing
1 A
Response
1 SLOW
Ba
ndwidt
h
1 OFF
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
2 5 dB
Weight
ing
2 A
Response
2 FAST
Logged Dat
a T
able
Da
t
e/Time
Leq-1
8/2/2023 12:05:15 PM

69.4 12:06:15 PM

67.5 12:07:15 PM

70.4 12:08:15 PM

70.4 12:09:15 PM
69 12:10:15 PM

69.2 12:11:15 PM

71.6 12:12:15 PM

70.6 12:13:15 PM

70.2 12:14:15 PM

66.7 12:15:15 PM

70.1 12:16:15 PM

68.1 12:17:15 PM

69.8 12:18:15 PM

69.3 12:19:15 PM

71.8

368
Logged Dat
a Chart
Simi V
alle
y Design Guidelines and SpeciĮc Plan_Sit
e6: Log
g
ed Da
t
a Chart

369
Site 7: Cochran Street and Tapo Street
370
Session Report
8/2/2023
Informat
ion P
anel
Na
me
Simi Va
lley Design Guidelines a
nd Specific Pla
n_Sit
e7
St
a
rt
Time
8/2/2023 12:31:52 PM
St
op Time
8/2/2023 12:46:52 PM
Device Na
me
BIJ090032
Model Type
SoundPro DL
Device Firmwa
re Rev
R.13H
Comment
s
Summary Dat
a P
anel
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Leq
1 68.4 dB
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
1 3 dB
Weight
ing
1 A
Response
1 SLOW
Ba
ndwidt
h
1 OFF
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
2 5 dB
Weight
ing
2 A
Response
2 FAST
Logged Dat
a T
able
Da
t
e/Time
Leq-1
8/2/2023 12:32:52 PM

66.3 12:33:52 PM

69.5 12:34:52 PM
66 12:35:52 PM

64.4 12:36:52 PM

63.8 12:37:52 PM

68.9 12:38:52 PM

75.2 12:39:52 PM

69.3 12:40:52 PM

65.8 12:41:52 PM

67.5 12:42:52 PM

62.7 12:43:52 PM

67.9 12:44:52 PM
66 12:45:52 PM

67.2 12:46:52 PM

68.6

371
Logged Dat
a Chart
Simi V
alle
y Design Guidelines and SpeciĮc Plan_Sit
e7: Log
g
ed Da
t
a Chart

372
Site 8: Residence (4472 Bidwell Street)
373
Session Report
8/2/2023
Informat
ion P
anel
Na
me
Simi Va
lley Design Guidelines a
nd Specific Pla
n_Sit
e8
St
a
rt
Time
8/2/2023 1:04:23 PM
St
op Time
8/2/2023 1:19:23 PM
Device Na
me
BIJ090032
Model Type
SoundPro DL
Device Firmwa
re Rev
R.13H
Comment
s
Summary Dat
a P
anel
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Leq
1 52.9 dB
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
1 3 dB
Weight
ing
1 A
Response
1 SLOW
Ba
ndwidt
h
1 OFF
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
2 5 dB
Weight
ing
2 A
Response
2 FAST
Logged Dat
a T
able
Da
t
e/Time
Leq-1
8/2/2023 1:05:23 PM

53.2 1:06:23 PM

51.9 1:07:23 PM

52.7 1:08:23 PM

50.7 1:09:23 PM

50.1 1:10:23 PM
53 1:11:23 PM

52.4 1:12:23 PM

57.3 1:13:23 PM

52.2 1:14:23 PM

53.8 1:15:23 PM

53.3 1:16:23 PM

50.1 1:17:23 PM

51.8 1:18:23 PM
54 1:19:23 PM

51.2

374
Logged Dat
a Chart
Simi V
alle
y Design Guidelines and SpeciĮc Plan_Sit
e8: Log
g
ed Da
t
a Chart

375
Site 9: Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street
376
Session Report
8/2/2023
Informat
ion P
anel
Na
me
Simi Va
lley Design Guidelines a
nd Specific Pla
n_Sit
e9
St
a
rt
Time
8/2/2023 1:28:32 PM
St
op Time
8/2/2023 1:43:32 PM
Device Na
me
BIJ090032
Model Type
SoundPro DL
Device Firmwa
re Rev
R.13H
Comment
s
Summary Dat
a P
anel
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Leq
1 71.2 dB
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
1 3 dB
Weight
ing
1 A
Response
1 SLOW
Ba
ndwidt
h
1 OFF
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
2 5 dB
Weight
ing
2 A
Response
2 FAST
Logged Dat
a T
able
Da
t
e/Time
Leq-1
8/2/2023 1:29:32 PM

66.1 1:30:32 PM

69.3 1:31:32 PM

70.8 1:32:32 PM

67.2 1:33:32 PM

71.6 1:34:32 PM

62.5 1:35:32 PM

68.9 1:36:32 PM
70 1:37:32 PM

67.4 1:38:32 PM

66.6 1:39:32 PM

67.4 1:40:32 PM

71.2 1:41:32 PM

70.5 1:42:32 PM

67.8 1:43:32 PM

79.5

377
Logged Dat
a Chart
Simi V
alle
y Design Guidelines and SpeciĮc Plan_Sit
e9: Log
g
ed Da
t
a Chart

378
Site 10: Hidden Ranch Drive
379
Session Report
8/2/2023
Informat
ion P
anel
Na
me
Simi Va
lley Design Guidelines a
nd Specific Pla
n_Sit
e10
St
a
rt
Time
8/2/2023 1:52:59 PM
St
op Time
8/2/2023 2:07:59 PM
Device Na
me
BIJ090032
Model Type
SoundPro DL
Device Firmwa
re Rev
R.13H
Comment
s
Summary Dat
a P
anel
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Descript
ion
Met
er
Va
lue
Leq
1 61 dB
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
1 3 dB
Weight
ing
1 A
Response
1 SLOW
Ba
ndwidt
h
1 OFF
Excha
nge Ra
t
e
2 5 dB
Weight
ing
2 A
Response
2 FAST
Logged Dat
a T
able
Da
t
e/Time
Leq-1
8/2/2023 1:53:59 PM

58.2 1:54:59 PM

56.9 1:55:59 PM

57.6 1:56:59 PM

63.9 1:57:59 PM

59.5 1:58:59 PM

62.7 1:59:59 PM

60.1 2:00:59 PM

63.3 2:01:59 PM

59.1 2:02:59 PM

63.3 2:03:59 PM

54.6 2:04:59 PM

60.2 2:05:59 PM

61.9 2:06:59 PM
63 2:07:59 PM

60.9

380
Logged Dat
a Chart
Simi V
alle
y Design Guidelines and SpeciĮc Plan_Sit
e10: Log
g
ed Da
t
a Chart

381
Traffic Noise Monitoring Reports
382
REPORT: Results: Sound Levels - No Barrier Objects
TNM VERSION 3.1.7970.37608 REPORT DATE: 7 September 2023 CALCULATED WITH: 3.1.7970.37608 CALCULATION DATE: 9/7/2023 4:21:42 PM CASE: Simi Valley_Existing ORGANIZATION:

UNITS: English ANALYSIS BY: KTo
DEFAULT GROUND TYPE: Pavement PROJECT/CONTRACT
ATMOSPHERICS: 68°F, 50% Average pavement type shall be used unless a state PAVEMENT TYPE(S) USED: Average highway agency substantiates the use of a different type with approval FHWA.

Receiver Modeled Traffic Noise Levels
Nb. Ldn Increase over Existing
Name No. R.R. Existing Absolute Relative Type
Ldn Calc. Criterion Calc. Criterion of
dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Impact

1. Los Angeles Ave west of
Sinaloa Rd
1 1 --- 73.0 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

2. Los Angeles Ave between
Sinaloa Rd & First St
2 1 --- 72.3 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

3. Los Angeles Ave between
First St & Erringer Rd
3 1 --- 71.7 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

4. Los Angeles Ave east of
Erringer Rd
4 1 --- 71.5 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

5. Sinaloa Rd south of Los
Angeles Ave
5 1 --- 68.8 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

6. First St between Easy St &
Los Angeles Ave
6 1 --- 71.3 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

7. Erringer Rd north of Los
Angeles Ave
7 1 --- 71.8 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

8. Erringer Rd south of Los
Angeles Ave
8 1 --- 70.2 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

9. Alamo St west of Tapo St 9 1 --- 70.6 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

10. Alamo St east of Tapo St 10 1 --- 69.6 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

11. Cochran Ave west of Tapo St 11 1 --- 71.7 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

12. Cochran Ave east of Tapo St 12 1 --- 70.5 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

13. Los Angeles Ave between
Tapo Cyn Rd & Tapo St
13 1 --- 71.0 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

14. Los Angeles Ave between
Tapo St & Ralston Ave
14 1 --- 69.8 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

383
REPORT: Results: Sound Levels - No Barrier Objects
TNM VERSION 3.1.7970.37608 REPORT DATE: 7 September 2023 CALCULATED WITH: 3.1.7970.37608 CALCULATION DATE: 9/7/2023 4:21:42 PM CASE: Simi Valley_Existing ORGANIZATION:

UNITS: English ANALYSIS BY: KTo
DEFAULT GROUND TYPE: Pavement PROJECT/CONTRACT
ATMOSPHERICS: 68°F, 50% Average pavement type shall be used unless a state PAVEMENT TYPE(S) USED: Average highway agency substantiates the use of a different type with approval FHWA.

Receiver Modeled Traffic Noise Levels
Nb. Ldn Increase over Existing
Name No. R.R. Existing Absolute Relative Type
Ldn Calc. Criterion Calc. Criterion of
dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Impact

15. Los Angeles Ave between
Ralston Ave & Stearns St
15 1 --- 71.1 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

16. Tapo Cyn Rd south of Los
Angeles Ave
16 1 --- 69.5 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

17. Tapo St between Alamo St &
SR-118
17 1 --- 70.1 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

18. Tapo St between SR-118 &
Cochran Ave
18 1 --- 69.7 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

19. Tapo St between Cochran
Ave & Los Angeles Ave
19 1 --- 69.0 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

20. Stearns St north of Los
Angeles Ave
20 1 --- 68.2 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

384
REPORT: Results: Sound Levels - No Barrier Objects
TNM VERSION 3.1.7970.37608 REPORT DATE: 7 September 2023 CALCULATED WITH: 3.1.7970.37608 CALCULATION DATE: 9/7/2023 4:29:49 PM CASE: Simi
Valley_FutureProject
ORGANIZATION:

UNITS: English ANALYSIS BY: KTo
DEFAULT GROUND TYPE: Pavement PROJECT/CONTRACT
ATMOSPHERICS: 68°F, 50% Average pavement type shall be used unless a state PAVEMENT TYPE(S) USED: Average highway agency substantiates the use of a different type with approval FHWA.

Receiver Modeled Traffic Noise Levels
Nb. Ldn Increase over Existing
Name No. R.R. Existing Absolute Relative Type
Ldn Calc. Criterion Calc. Criterion of
dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Impact

1. Los Angeles Ave west of
Sinaloa Rd
1 1 --- 73.4 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

2. Los Angeles Ave between
Sinaloa Rd & First St
2 1 --- 72.7 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

3. Los Angeles Ave between
First St & Erringer Rd
3 1 --- 72.2 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

4. Los Angeles Ave east of
Erringer Rd
4 1 --- 71.7 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

5. Sinaloa Rd south of Los
Angeles Ave
5 1 --- 69.0 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

6. First St between Easy St &
Los Angeles Ave
6 1 --- 72.1 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

7. Erringer Rd north of Los
Angeles Ave
7 1 --- 72.2 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

8. Erringer Rd south of Los
Angeles Ave
8 1 --- 70.5 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

9. Alamo St west of Tapo St 9 1 --- 70.8 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

10. Alamo St east of Tapo St 10 1 --- 69.9 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

11. Cochran Ave west of Tapo St 11 1 --- 72.7 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

12. Cochran Ave east of Tapo St 12 1 --- 71.4 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

13. Los Angeles Ave between
Tapo Cyn Rd & Tapo St
13 1 --- 71.4 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

385
REPORT: Results: Sound Levels - No Barrier Objects
TNM VERSION 3.1.7970.37608 REPORT DATE: 7 September 2023 CALCULATED WITH: 3.1.7970.37608 CALCULATION DATE: 9/7/2023 4:29:49 PM CASE: Simi
Valley_FutureProject
ORGANIZATION:

UNITS: English ANALYSIS BY: KTo
DEFAULT GROUND TYPE: Pavement PROJECT/CONTRACT
ATMOSPHERICS: 68°F, 50% Average pavement type shall be used unless a state PAVEMENT TYPE(S) USED: Average highway agency substantiates the use of a different type with approval FHWA.

Receiver Modeled Traffic Noise Levels
Nb. Ldn Increase over Existing
Name No. R.R. Existing Absolute Relative Type
Ldn Calc. Criterion Calc. Criterion of
dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Impact

14. Los Angeles Ave between
Tapo St & Ralston Ave
14 1 --- 70.2 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

15. Los Angeles Ave between
Ralston Ave & Stearns St
15 1 --- 71.2 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

16. Tapo Cyn Rd south of Los
Angeles Ave
16 1 --- 69.9 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

17. Tapo St between Alamo St &
SR-118
17 1 --- 70.5 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

18. Tapo St between SR-118 &
Cochran Ave
18 1 --- 70.2 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

19. Tapo St between Cochran
Ave & Los Angeles Ave
19 1 --- 69.3 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

20. Stearns St north of Los
Angeles Ave
20 1 --- 68.0 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

386
Appendix C
Transportation Impact Analysis
387

MEMORANDUM
To:  City of Simi Valley  From:  Iteris, Inc.

Date:  June 18, 2024
RE:  Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan – CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis

INTRODUCTION
This memorandum describes the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation impact analysis for the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan project. The evaluation is consistent with CEQA Guidelines effective December  28,  2018. The  Specific  Plan’s  impacts  are  evaluated  per  Appendix  G  Environmental  Checklist Form of the current CEQA guidelines, which assesses projects by the four criteria listed below:

T‐1  Would  the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressi ng the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? T‐2  Would the project conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? T‐3  Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? T‐4  Would th
e project result in inadequate emergency access?
PROJECT SETTING
The Envision Simi Valley Los Angeles Avenue Corridor and Tapo Street Area Specific Plan (Specific Plan) is a regulatory plan that implements the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan. The study area for the Specific Plan includes two areas: Los Angeles Avenue Corridor (from Sinaloa Road through Erringer Road)  and  Tapo  Street  Area  (from  Alamo  Street  through  Los  Angeles  Avenue,  extending  towards  the Metrolink Station ‐
high quality transit area). The boundaries for these two areas were informed by the boundaries  of  opportunity  areas  defined  in  the  General  Plan  and  overlay  districts  identified  in  the Municipal Code with input from the City.

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
For impact criteria T‐1, T‐3, and T‐4, a qualitative assessment was prepared, through review of the Specific Plan goals and policies (and comparing against relevant plans as appropriate) to determine if any potential significant impacts would occur as a result of the Project.

For impact criteria T‐2, a technical analys is was performed using the Simi Valley Transportation Model 388
2 (SVTM), a computerized  travel demand model  maintained by the City of Simi Valley.  Iteris  utilized the SVTM to generate the VMT statistics. The model consists of a 2019 base year scenario and 2030 future year  scenario.  The  SVTM  consists  of  a  detailed  traffic  analysis  zone  (TAZ)  structure  in  the  City  of  Simi Valley, including 333 TAZ’s within the City. The Specific Plan area inc ludes 34 TAZ’s (total of Los Angeles
Avenue and Tapo Street areas).

For the impact criteria T‐2 analysis, all VMT for trips beginning or ending in the City were accounted for, consistent with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Im
pacts in CEQA.  While other methodologies measure only the amount of VMT traveling on streets within the City, or only half the distance of trips from outside of the City (as in SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Target analysis), the Specific Plan analyzes the full extent of vehicle travel from the Project.

In  order  to  dete
rmine  the  Specific  Plan  project’s  potential  level  of  impact,  a  new  SVTM  scenario  was prepared, incorporating the land use projections of the Specific Plan. For land use plans which include both residential  and employment uses, the appropriate analysis metric is VMT per service population, where service populat
ion is defined as the number of residents plus the number of jobs. The land use plan includes additional residential and non‐residential land use summarized as follows:
 Los Angeles Avenue Area:
o 5,372 net new residential units
o 26,393 square feet of net new commercial (i.e., non‐residential) uses  Tapo Street Are
a:
o 4,220 net new residential units
o 19,278 square feet of net new commercial (i.e., non‐residential) uses o 35,243 square feet of net new industrial uses
IMPACT ANALYSIS
This section presents the CEQA impact evaluation for each of the four criteria.

T‐1 Impact Evaluation
The  Specific  Plan  project’s  planned  transportation  networks,  goals  and  policies  provide  consistency related to the Short‐Range Transit Plan, Local Road Safety Plan, and Bicycle Master Plan.

SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Simi Valley is a member of the SCAG Regional Council, the decision‐making body of the SCAG Joint Powers Authority under California state law, established as an association of local governmen ts and agencies that
voluntarily convene as  a forum to address  regional issues. Under federal law,  SCAG is designated  as  a Metropolitan  Planning  Organization  (MPO)  and  under  state  law  as  a  Regional  Transportation  Planning Agency and a Council of Governments. The SCAG Regional Transp ortation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), Connect SoCal is a long‐range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern.  The Connect SoCal RTP/SCS is a planning document for the 389
3 region,  allowing  project  sponsors  to  qualify  for  federal  funding.  In  addition,  Connect  SoCal  2024  will identify  a  combination  of  transportation  and  land  use  strategies  that  help  the  region  achieve  state greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, and support our vital goods movement indus try.

The RTP/SCS is updated every four years and it is anticipated that the City will work with SCAG to update the RTP/SCS to be consistent with the Specific Plan.   The Specific Plan includes strategies for mixed‐use development,  which  allows  multiple  land  uses  to  work  together,  to  reduc e  vehicle  trip  lengths.  The California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2016 Mobile Source Strategy recognizes that coordinated regional planning  can  improve  California’s  land  use  patterns  and  transportation  policy  in  a  way  that  reduces transportation related emissions by reducing growth in VMT.

The following relevant goals and policies, as part of Specific Plan, would support consistency  with these plans:
 Goal 4: Foster Transit Use: Integrate development in the proximity of the existing Metrolink rail transit  station  within  the  Tapo  Street  Specific  Plan  area  to  foster  transit  use  and  reduce dependence on cars, energy consumption, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. o a.  Establish  Los  Angeles  Avenue  as  a  transit  priority  corridor  for  improved  transit programming and local/regional mobility.
o b. Include, as part of the streetscape strategy for Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street, the inclusion of bus shelters,
seating, and other amenities such as bike racks at existing or planned bus stops.
 Goal  6:  Improve  Connectivity  to  Key  Destinations:  Address  mobility  issues  to  strengthen connections to destinations and activity centers within and beyond the study areas. o a.  Identify  infrastructure  projects  in  the  short,  medium,  and  long‐term  that  will  be important catalysts for development in the study areas and beyond, including "complete street" improvements for Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street. o b.  Create  pedestrian  connections  through  superb locks  along  Los  Angeles  Avenue  and Tapo Street to support a walkable environment such as paseos. o c. Provide seamless  connections between all of the uses, stores,  places,  public/private gathering spaces, parking, and activities.
 Goal  7:  Accommodate  All  Transportation  Modes:  Use  complete  street  approaches  for  “right‐ sizing” streets that improve pedestrian safety and balance the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles.  Connect  to  neighboring  active  transportation  assets  such  as Arroyo  Simi  and  the  Simi Valley transit station.
o a. Introduce standards or programs that result in long‐term reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
o b. Evaluate enhanced bike and pedest
rian infrastructure along Los Angeles Avenue and
Tapo  Street  for  opportunities  to  connect  to  the  study  areas  and  adjacent  destinations such as the Simi Valley transit station and the Arroyo Simi, including key first/last mile connections to from the adjacent neighborhoods.
390
4 o c. Evaluate impacts of repurposing travel lanes for bike lanes and/or on‐street parking as it relates to truck traffic, local vehicular traffic, and regional vehicular traffic. o d. Integrate the use of emerging technologies and micromobility options.

The  Envision  Simi  Valley  Specific  Plan  is  consistent  with  programs,  plans,  ordinances  and  policies addressing the circulation system, incl
uding transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, making the impact less‐than‐significant and no further mitigation would be required.

T‐2
Impact Evaluation
Under criteria T‐2, the proposed Specific Plan’s effects on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) are evaluated, as described in the following sub‐sections.

VMT Impact Analysis
The  City  currently  evaluates  VMT  impacts  of  individual  development  projects  using  the  following thresholds of significance:
 A project will be considered to have an impact if it generate s VMT per capita and/or per employee in excess of 5% less than the background VMT for the City of Simi Valley.

This  threshold  was  applied  to  evaluate  the  potential  transportation  impacts  of  the  Specific  Plan.  As mentioned, since the project includes residential and non‐residential land use, VMT per service population (i.e., residents plus jobs) was used as the analysis metric.

Applying the described land use projections, citywi
de VMT (i.e., regional average) and Specific Plan area
VMT outputs were developed using the SVTM. Table 2 summarizes the daily citywide VMT per service population for the existing scenario and Specific Plan area daily VMT per service population for  the existing plus project scenario. Detailed VMT calculations are provided in Appendix A.

Table 1: Specific Plan VMT Summary (versus regional average) Scenario (Area)
Total Home‐
based Daily
VMT
Total Work‐
based Daily
VMT
Total Daily
VMT
Service
Population*
VMT / Service
Population
Existing (City of Simi Valley)  2,264,710  499,976  2,764,686  178,804  15.5 Existing Plus Project (SP Area)  442,744  93,055  535,799  36,913  14.5 * Service Population equals the total of residents and employees As shown in Table 2, the existing plus project VMT per service p opulation for the Specific Plan area is
forecast to be 14.5, while the existing citywide VMT per service population is currently 15.5. As such, 5% below existing citywide VMT per service population is 14.7. Therefore, the existing plus project Specific 391
5 Plan area VMT per service population (14.5) is not forecast to exceed the City’s CEQA threshold.

Thus, this impact is considered less than significant.

Goals and Policies Affecting VMT Reduction
The following relevant goals and policies, as part of the Specific Plan, would have an effect on reducing VMT:
 Goal  7:  Accommodate  All  Transportation  Mo
des:  Use  complete  street  approaches  for  “right‐
sizing” streets that improve pedestrian safety and balance the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles.  Connect  to  neighboring  active  transportation  assets  such  as Arroyo  Simi  and  the  Simi Valley transit station.
o a. Introduce standards or programs that result in long‐term reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
o b. Evaluate enhanced bike and pedest
rian infrastructure along Los Angeles Avenue and
Tapo  Street  for  opportunities  to  connect  to  the  study  areas  and  adjacent  destinations such as the Simi Valley transit station and the Arroyo Simi, including key first/last mile connections to from the adjacent neighborhoods.
o c. Evaluate impacts of repurposing  travel lanes for bike lanes, bus lanes, and/or on‐street parking as it relates to truck traffic, local vehicular traffic, and regional vehicular traffic. o d.  Integrate  the  use  of  emerging  technologies  and  micromobility  options  which  may include on‐demand scooters and e‐bikes.

T‐3 Impact Evaluation
One of the objectives of the Specific Plan is to ensure future development and transportation facilities would  improve  connectivity  and  linkages  within  the  two  areas.  Any  proposed  roadway  modifications included in the Specific Plan will be designed to City and State engineering design standards to meet sight distance requirements, including visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists. The Speci fic Plan does not propose any incompatible uses that would increase hazards. As a result, the Specific Plan will have a beneficial impact on geometric design features and incompatible uses.  In addition, the following relevant goal and policies, as part of the Specific Plan, would have a positive effect on geometric design and safety:
 Goal 9: Enha
nce the Public Realm and Streetscapes: Prioritize internal connectivity and a vibrant pedestrian environment along major corridors through wide sidewalks  with parkway amenities such as bicycle parking, sitting areas, pedestrian lighting, and street trees. o a. Identify strategic locations along Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street, including the Los Angeles  Avenue/First  Street  and  Los  Angeles  Avenue/Tapo  Street  intersections  for pedestrian improvements such as:
 Gateway features and plazas.
 Traffic‐cal
ming measures.
 Wayfinding signage and other placemaking signs placed in landscaped medians and along sidewalks.
 High visibility crosswalks at all intersections.
392
6  Pedestrian amenities and furniture such as street trees, lighting fixtures, benches, bus shelters, and waste receptacles.
 Pedestrian refuge islands at raised medians.
o b.  Consolidate  curb  cuts  that  are  shared  among  multiple  projects  to  improve  the pedestrian experience.

As such, the Specific Plan would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design featu re (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment.  Thus, this impact is considered less than significant.

T‐4 Impact Evaluation
The Specific Plan does not include elements that would impede emergency vehicle access. As mentioned, public roadways would be designed to conform to City and County Fire Department standards for access, as would buildings included within new developments.

Thus, this impact is considered less than significant.
393
7 APPENDIX A – VMT Calculations
394
Existing/No Project
ID Purpose Productions Attractions
1 Home‐based Work 513,711  364,961
2 Home‐based School 171,181  163,704
3 Home‐based Other 1,579,818  1,581,567
4 Work ‐Based Other 135,015  126,142
5 Other Based Other 769,180  774,611
3,168,905  3,010,984
Total VMT/Service Population 15.5
Simi Valley
Total Employees
Total Home‐based VMT/Capita 17.0
Total Work‐based VMT/Employee 10.9
Total VMT
Total Home‐based VMT 2,264,710
Total Work‐based VMT 499,976
Total Population 132,941
45,863
395
With Project
ID Purpose Productions Attractions
1 Home‐based Work 177,465         89,697
2 Home‐based School 68,291           63,083
3 Home‐based Other 370,143         373,828
4 Work ‐Based Other 31,966           30,332
5 Other  Based Other 191,698         193,083
839,563         750,023
Total VMT/Service Population 20.0
Total VMT/Service Population 14.5
VMT Reduction (from project features) (201,763)
Project Area
Total VMT
Total Home‐based VMT 615,898
Total Work‐based VMT 121,664
Total Population 28,866
Total Employees 8,047
Total Home‐based VMT/Capita 21.3
Total Work‐based VMT/Employee 15.1
396
Appendix D
Infrastructure Technical Report
397
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024

KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 0

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

CORRIDOR & TAPO STREET

AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNICAL REPORT
KPFF Consulting Engineers
213.418.0201
Storm Drain, Sewer, Water, and Dry Utilities
398
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 6

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Storm Drain Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 7

2.1.1 Watershed Setting and Existing Drainage Facilities ................................................................. 7

2.2 Sewer Infrastructure .................................................................................................................. 12

2.2.1 Existing Sewer System and Facilities ..................................................................................... 12

2.2.3. Existing Sewer Capacity Assessment ......................................................................................... 17

2.3 Water Infrastructure .................................................................................................................. 19

2.3.1 Existing Water System ........................................................................................................... 19

2.3.2 Existing Water Demand ....................................................................................................... 20

2.4 Dry Utility Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 21

2.4.1 Electrical & Natural Gas ............................................................................................................. 21

3. SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS ...................................................................................................................... 22

3.1 Storm Drain Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 22

3.1.1 Hydrology & Water Quality ................................................................................................... 22

3.2 Sewer & Wastewater Infrastructure .......................................................................................... 23

3.2.1 Proposed Wastewater System Flows..................................................................................... 23

3.2.2 Proposed Sewer & Wastewater System ................................................................................ 25

3.3 Water Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 26

3.3.1 Proposed Water System Growth ........................................................................................... 26

3.3.2 Proposed Water System Demand.......................................................................................... 26

3.4 Dry Utility Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 27

3.4.1 Electrical ................................................................................................................................ 27

3.4.2 Natural Gas ............................................................................................................................ 27

4. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 27

5. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 28 399
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2
List of Figures
Figure 1 Specific Plan Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Specific Plan Aerial Extent with Key Features
Figure 3 Specific Plan Existing Zoning
Figure 4 Specific Plan Proposed Zoning
Figure 5 Specific Plan Existing Storm Drain Systems – Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Figure 6 Specific Plan Existing Storm Drain Systems – Tapo Street Area Figure 7 Specific Plan Existing Sewer Systems – Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Figure 8 Specific Plan Existing Sewer Systems – Tapo Street Area Figure 9 Specific Plan Existing Water Systems – Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Figure 10 Specific Plan Existing Water Systems – Tapo Street Area Figure 11 Master Plan of Drainage CIP
List of Tables
Table 1 Existing Specific Plan Zoning Designations
Table 2 Specific Plan Zoning Designations
Table 3 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Existing Drainage Facilities Table 4 Tapo Street Area Existing Drainage Facilities
Table 5 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Existing Sewer Infrastructure Table 6 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Existing Sewer Trunk Lines Table 7 Tapo Street Area Existing Sewer Infrastructure
Table 8 Tapo Street Area Existing Sewer Trunk Lines
Table 9 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor, West of First Street Estimated Existing Flow Rates Table 10 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor, East of First Street Estimated Existing Flow Rates Table 11 Tapo Street Area, north of Cochran Street Estimated Existing Flow Rates Table 12 Tapo Street Area, South of Cochran Street Estimated Existing Flow Rates Table 13 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Trunk Line Maximum Capacity Analysis Table 14 Tapo Street Area Trunk Line Maximum Capacity Analysis Table 15 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Existing Water Infrastructure 400
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3
Table 16 Tapo Street Area Existing Water Infrastructure Table 17 Specific Plan Area Existing Electrical Infrastructure Table 18 Specific Plan Area Existing Natural Gas Infrastructure Table 19 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Proposed Sewage Generation Table 20 Tapo Street Area Proposed Sewage Generation
Table 21 Specific Plan Area Trunk Line Analysis
401
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 4
Acronyms & Abbreviations
AC Acre
ACP Asbestos Cement Pipe
AFY Acre-Feet per Year
ATS Active Treatment System
BAT Best Available Technology Economically Available
BCT Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
BMP Best Management Practice
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
cfs Cubic Feet per Second
CIP Capital Improvement Projects
CIPP Cured-in-Place Pipe
CMP Corrugated Metal Pipe
CWA Clean Water Act
d/D Maximum Flow within Pipe Over Depth Ration
DCV Design Capture Volume
DU Dwelling Unit
EIR Environment Impact Report
EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
GCP General Construction Permit
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GPD gallons per day
LF Linear Feet
LID Low Impact Development
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Drain Systems
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
NAL Numeric Action Levels
NEL Numeric Effluent Limits
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
RCB Reinforced Concrete Box
402
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
ROW Right-of-Way
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SF Square Feet
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SSMH Sanitary Sewer Manhole
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
WQO Water Quality Objective
403
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 6

1. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
The Infrastructure Plan Report for sanitary sewer, storm drainage, domestic water, electrical power, and natural gas, provides a program-level analysis intended to consider the broad environmental effects of the overall proposed Envision Simi Valley Los Angeles Avenue Corridor & Tapo Street Area Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The Specific Plan will implement the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan and establish a specific vision for the further development of the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor (from Sinaloa Road through Erringer Road) and the Tapo Street Area (from Alamo Street through Los Angeles Avenue, extending towards the Metrolink Station). See Figure 1 for the Specific Plan Vicinity Map. The Specific Plan will update current commercial and residential zones with new design standards.

The City of Simi Valley is located within Ventura County and is primarily accessible by the California State Routes 118 and 23. In addition, various large surface streets like Madera Road, Santa Susana Pass Road, West Los Angeles Avenue and Tierra Rejada Road provide access to the city. Simi Valley has a population of 126,380 (2022) and encompasses 42 square miles of area. Simi Valley is located 37 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. The city is bordered to the southwest by Thousand Oaks, Moorpark to the west, and Chatsworth to the east. See Figure 2 for ariel extent and key features.

Table 1 summarizes the Specific Plan study areas existing zoning designations (Figure 3).

Table 1 Existing Specific Plan Zoning Designations
• Residential Estate • General Industrial
• Residential Very Low Density • Light Industrial
• Residential Medium Density • Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Overlay • Mixed-Use Overlay • Tapo Street Area Overlay
• Commercial Planned Development • Business Park Overlay • Commercial Office • New Vehicle Dealer Overlay
• Commercial Industrial
Source: City of Simi Valley, 2022
Table 2 summarizes the Specific Plan study areas proposed zoning designations (Figure 4). The right-of- way (ROW) land uses will not change under the Specific Plan.

Table 2 Specific Plan Zoning Designations
Los Angeles Avenue Corridor
• DMU – Downtown Mixed-Use
• DC – Downtown Corridor
Tapo Street Area
• TMU – Tapo Mixed-Use
• TBV – Tapo Business Village
• TKF – Tapo Kadota Fig
Source: Gruen Associates
The City’s 2012 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies significant or potentially significant levels of impact and mediation measures whether through the imposition of code 404
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 7
requirements, mitigation measures, or through the implementation of alternatives to the Project to accommodate the potential impacts. The 2012 General Plan presents The Infrastructure and Utility Implementation Program that describes measures and actions the city of Simi Valley will need to implement to meet the goals and policies defined in the General Plan. The 2012 EIR evaluated the impacts of a maximum of 58,438 housing units and a total population of 178,236 persons. The full buildout of the Specific Plan would result in a maximum of up to 54,822 housing units and a population of 151,927 persons in the city. A reduction of 6.19% of maximum housing units.

As part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, infrastructure such as storm drainage, sanitary sewer, water systems, and water quality that support the existing and proposed land uses will be analyzed at a level consistent with the program-level analysis. The land use changes under the new zoning designations have the potential to change impervious conditions, sewer generation rates, water demands, electrical demands, and natural gas demands.

The Infrastructure Plan Report includes a high-level analysis to evaluate the impacts within the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor and Tapo Street Area for the proposed changes presented in the Specific Plan based on review of available record drawings, public master plan documents, and a high-level study of the increase demands limited to the study areas. New site-specific infrastructure and/or upgrades or changes to the existing city infrastructure would be determined in coordination with the local entities through the plan check process.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 Storm Drain Infrastructure

2.1.1 Watershed Setting and Existing Drainage Facilities The Specific Plan areas are located within the Calleguas Creek Watershed in the Los Angeles Region. The watershed encompasses an area approximately 30 miles long and 14 miles wide extending from the Santa Susana Mountains to the north and the Santa Monica Mountains to the south. The major tributary areas to the watershed include Revolon Slough, Conejo Creek, Arroyo Santa Rosa, and Arroyo Simi. It has an estimated area of 343 square miles.

The Specific Plan areas are made up of different parcels that have been developed at different times and therefore the amount of structural BMPs for treatment of stormwater is expected to vary across the Specific Plan Area. It is expected to be a range of non-structural BMPs and environmental water quality measures that are currently utilized at the Specific Plan Area to minimize the impact of pollutant sources. These include general housekeeping practices such as regular trash collection, spill prevention, and response activities where applicable; proper storage of hazardous materials and wastes; and substituting environmentally friendly products for environmentally hazardous products, such as soaps, solvents, and pesticides. In addition, stormwater runoff from the minimal existing pervious surfaces such as the landscaped areas is naturally treated to some extent by existing vegetation and the absorptive properties of the existing soils.

The study area overlies the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). According to LARWQCB’s Basin Plan, water quality objectives applying to all ground waters of the region include bacteria, chemical constituents and 405
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 8
radioactivity, mineral quality, nitrogen (nitrate, nitrite), and taste and odor.1 Given the high imperviousness within the Specific Plan Areas, it is unlikely that the existing sites contribute significantly to groundwater recharge. Stormwater is routed from the site to catch basins on public roadways. The Specific Plan is comprised of two different corridors, the Tapo Street Area, and the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor.

Los Angeles Avenue Corridor
The Los Angeles Avenue Corridor is comprised of parcels adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue between Sinaloa Road and Erringer Road; and parcels adjacent to First Street between Arroyo Simi and the railroad tracks north of Arroyo Simi. This section of the city generally drains from northeast to southwest and the Arroyo Simi flows from east to west along the full extents of the corridor. These lots drain onto public right-of-way (ROW) before entering the City of Simi Valley maintained storm drain system through curb opening catch basins located along the streets. Some lots drain directly into Arroyo Simi, bypassing the city storm drain system. Arroyo Simi is maintained by Ventur County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD) and would require approval from VCWPD prior to development.

Table 3 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Existing Drainage Facilities Duncan Street The storm drain line is a 27-in RCP flowing north to south from Los Angeles Avenue to Patricia Avenue and transitions to 36-in RCP from Patricia Avenue to the discharge in Arroyo Simi.

Williams Street The storm drain line is a 36-in RCP flowing north to south from Los Angeles Avenue discharging in Arroyo Simi.

The storm drain line is a 24-in PVC pipe flowing north to south from Mall north of Williams Street to Los Angeles Avenue.

First Street The storm drain line is a 30-in RCP flowing from south to north crossing Los Angeles Avenue then transitions to a 48-in CMP flowing east to west discharging in Arroyo Simi
5th Street The storm drain line is a 90-in RCB flowing from south to north from California Ave discharging in Arroyo Simi
Sinaloa Road The storm drain line is a 48-in RCP flowing from south to north from Sinaloa Villa Road discharging in Arroyo Simi.

Source: City of Simi Valley Department of Public Works record drawings Tapo Street Area
The Tapo Street Area is comprised of parcels adjacent to Tapo Street between Alamo Street and Los Angeles Avenue; and parcels adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue between Stearns Street and Bishop Lane. 1 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, Basin Plan, April 2013, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_documentation.h tml accessed January 24, 2023.
406
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 9
These lots drain onto public right-of-way (ROW) before entering the City of Simi Valley maintained storm drain system through curb opening catch basins located along the streets. Some lots drain directly into Arroyo Simi, bypassing the city storm drain system. Arroyo Simi is maintained by VCWPD and would require approval from VCWPD prior to development.

Table 4 Tapo Street Area Existing Drainage Facilities
Tapo Street The storm drain line is a 48-in RCP flowing north to south from Lubbock Court to Alamo Street. The storm drain line transitions to a 36-in RCP flowing north to south from Alamo Street to Eve Road. The storm drain line transitions to a 42-in RCP flowing north to south from Eve Road to Cochran Street. The storm drain line transitions to a 48-in RCP flowing north to south from Cochran Street to Los Angeles Avenue. The storm drain line transitions to a 54-in RCP flowing north to south from Los Angeles Avenue to southern Project boundary.

The storm drain line is a 36-in RCP flowing north to south from Lubbock Court to Alamo Street.

The storm drain line is a 24-in CMP flowing west to east immediately north of Eve Road from the western edge of Tapo Street connecting to the storm drain line running north to south.

The storm drain line is a 24-in CMP flowing west to east north of Cochran Street from the western edge of Tapo Street connecting to the storm drain line running north to south.

The storm drain line is a 24-in CMP flowing west to east south of Cochran Street from the western edge of Tapo Street connecting to the storm drain line running north to south.

The storm drain line is a 24-in CMP flowing west to east south of Alpine Street from the western edge of Tapo Street connecting to the storm drain line running north to south.

The storm drain line is a 24-in CMP flowing west to east North of Los Angeles Avenue from the western edge of Tapo Street connecting to the storm drain line running north to south.

Alamo Street The storm drain line is a 30-in RCP flowing east to west from eastern Project limit to Tapo Street. The storm drain line transitions to a 36-in RCP flowing east to west crossing Tapo Street. The storm drain line transitions to a 48-in RCP flowing east to west from the western side of Tapo Street to the western Project boundary.

Cochran Street The storm drain line is a 30-in RCP flowing east to west from Workman Avenue connecting to the Tapo Street storm drain line running north to south.

Los Angeles
Avenue
The storm drain line is a 30-in RCB flowing east to west from the Rancho Santa Susana Community Center to the western edge of the Simi Rotary Club. The storm drain line transitions to an 84-in RCB flowing east to west from the Simi Valley Rotary Club to discharge in Arroyo Simi.

The storm drain line is 24-in RCP flowing east to west from Hidden Ranch Drive to the western extent of the Simi Valley Station Parking Lot and discharging in Arroyo Simi. 407
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 10
Hidden Ranch
Drive
The storm drain line is a 24-in RCP flowing from south to north from southern Project boundary to Hidden Park Court.

The storm drain line is a 30-in RCP flowing from east to west from Hidden Ranch Drive to the Amtrak line crossing the Simi Valley Station Parking lot.

The storm drain line is a 30-in RCP flowing south to north along the Amtrak line discharging in Arroyo Simi to the north
Source: City of Simi Valley Department of Public Works record drawings

2.1.1.1 City of Simi Valley Storm Drain Master Plans
City of Simi Valley Master Plan for Drainage 2014
The Master Plan for Drainage for the City of Simi Valley presents an overview of the engineering analysis conducted on the unique drainage features within the Simi Valley watershed. It also outlines a set of proposed infrastructure enhancements designed to safeguard the community against the risks of localized flooding. This comprehensive plan not only details the methods utilized but also emphasizes the outcomes achieved. The City’s Master Plan of Drainage concludes that the existing storm drain infrastructure can generally convey the 10-, 25-, and 50-year storm events within the city streets and the VCWPD channels, however the 100-year storm event still poses a flood damage threat to the city along the Arroyo Simi and many of its tributaries.

To prioritize the recommended drainage projects the Master Plan of Drainage 2014 relied on professional flood protection and engineering judgement. Page 65 lists the following tables of the projects and the tier system identified.

Table 7-1 Summary Drainage Improvement Costs
1 Recommended CIP Projects $ 42.4 M
2 Current LA Avenue Widening & Tract 5601 Projects Excluded $ 3.5 M 3 Projects To Be Paid For With Land Development Fees or Developers $ 12.0 M SUM All Project Identified $ 57.9 M
Table 7-2 Total Prioritized CIP Project Cost
1 Tier 1 Projects @ $200k Per Year $ 3.4 M
2 Tier 2 Projects @ $500K Per Year $ 7.1 M
3 Tier 3 Projects @ $1M Per Year $ 15.0 M
4 Tier 4 Projects @ $2M Per Year $ 30.0 M
5 Tier 5 Projects @ $3M Per Year $ 42.4 M
There is overlap between the proposed Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) identified in the 2014 Master Plan for Drainage and the study area of the Specific Plan. Tier 3 level Project ID SSW-01 identifies improvements of the existing storm drain infrastructure along Tapo Street between Highway 118 and the Arroyo Simi Channel. A Development Fee level Project ID SYC-01 plans improvements of the existing 408
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 11
storm drain infrastructure along Sinaloa Road from Terra Glen Way to the outfall at the Arroyo Simi Channel. See Figure 11 – City of Simi Valley MPD 2014 Prioritized CIP.

2.1.1.2 Existing Floodplain Mapping
The National Flood Insurance Act (1968) established the National Flood Insurance Program, which is based on the minimal requirements for flood plain management and is designed to minimize flood damage within the Special Flood Hazard Area. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the agency that administrates the National Flood Insurance Program. Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) are defined as areas that have a 1 percent chance of flooding within a given year, also referred to as the 100-year flood. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are developed to identify areas of flood hazards within a community.

This Specific Plan Area is within multiple different FEMA Zones.

Los Angeles Avenue Corridor
The Los Angeles Avenue Corridor is located largely within FEMA Zone X (Area of Minimal Flood Hazard).

However, portions of the corridor are within Zone AO (Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet, usually sheet flow on sloping terrain). It is highly unlikely that Zone X locations will experience flooding, but Zone AO areas are subject to flooding by the 1% (100-yr) annual storm event. Proposed developments within the Zone AO will have to work with the City of Simi Valley, VCWPD, and FEMA to ensure that proposed developments do not experience flooding.

Tapo Street Area
The Tapo Street Area lies mostly within Zone X (Area of Minimal Flood Hazard). Other portions of the corridor fall within Zone AH (Flood Depths of 1 to 3 feet, usually areas of ponding) and Zone AO (Flood Depths of 1 to 3 feet, usually sheet flow on sloping terrain). It is highly unlikely that Zone X locations will experience flooding, but Zone AO and Zone AH areas are subject to flooding by the 1% (100-yr) annual storm event. Proposed developments within the Zone AO will have to work with the City of Simi Valley, VCWPD, and FEMA to ensure that proposed developments do not experience flooding. 409
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 12

2.2 Sewer Infrastructure

2.2.1 Existing Sewer System and Facilities
Per the Simi Valley 2019 Sewer System Management Plan, Simi Valley’s sanitary sewer system currently has over 350 miles of mainline sewers. All wastewater is treated by the Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which is managed by the Sanitation Services Division of the City of Simi Valley Department of Public Works. Per the 2019 Sewer System Reliability Assessment and Financial Plan Update (provided by the Simi Valley Public Works department), the WQCP is designed to treat a peak daily flow up to 15.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and an average daily flow capacity of 12.5 MGD. The average daily flow capacity will be used for the sewer capacity analysis within this report. Based off 2023 hourly influent data provided by Simi Valley Public Works, the metered average daily flow is 7.9 MGD.

Table IU-1 in Chapter 5 – Mobility and Infrastructure of the 2012 General Plan outlines several programs that currently govern how sewer infrastructure is to be managed. The Sewer System Management Plan addresses sewer maintenance and the evaluation for future improvements. The Sewer Treatment Plant Condition Assessment manages the maintenance of the treatment plant.

Existing sewer infrastructure within the Specific Plan Los Angeles Avenue Corridor are listed in Tables 5 & 6 below. The corridor has been separated into two sections. Table 5 lists the existing sewer mains based on record drawings. Table 6 identifies the main trunk lines that collect the overall sewage of each section of the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor. The estimated existing sewer flows, and the capacity of the identified trunk lines will be used to determine potential system deficiency.

Table 5 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Existing Sewer Infrastructure Erringer Road Two existing sewer lines are expected to service the lots along Erringer Road. One is a 33-in ACP pipe flowing south until reaching Patricia Avenue before turning to flow west along Patricia Avenue. The second is a 12-in ACP line that flows south along Erringer Road.

Patricia Avenue The sewer trunk main is a 33-in ACP from Erringer Road to Hubbard Street. The sewer trunk main is 36-in from Hubbard Street to Williams Street and transitions to a 39-in ACP to Los Angeles Avenue.

Duncan Street The sewer line is an 8-in PVC that flows from north to south and connects to the 33- in ACP sewer trunk running east to west along Patricia Avenue.

Donville Avenue The sewer line is an 8-in PVC flowing south to the intersection of Donville Avenue/Los Angeles Avenue.

Hubbard Street The sewer line is an 8-in PVC flowing south and connecting to the 33-in line on Patricia Ave.

First Street The trunk main is 39-in ACP from Los Angeles Avenue to Easy Street. The sewer line is a 10-in VCP sewer line from Los Angeles Avenue to Easy Street, crossing through the First Street to Easy Way easement. The 8-in ACP Sewer line is between the railroad and Easy Street. The 12-in PVC sewer line is between the railroad and Easy Street.

Fifth Street The trunk main is a 24-in ACP from Ventura Avenue to Los Angeles Avenue northbound.

Sinaloa Road The sewer line is 15-in ACP from Royal Avenue to Los Angeles Avenue flowing northbound.

Source: City of Simi Valley GIS & City of Simi Valley Department of Public Works record drawings 410
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 13
Table 6 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Existing Sewer Trunk Lines Service Area Acreage Existing Main Trunk Line
East of First Street 117 32-in ACP City line along Easy Street West of First Street 43 24-in HOBAS City line along Los Angeles Avenue Source: City of Simi Valley GIS & City of Simi Valley Department of Public Works record drawings Existing sewer infrastructure within the Specific Plan Tapo Street Area are listed in Table 7 & 8 below. The Tapo Street Area has been separated into two sections. Table 7 lists the individual sewer mains documented in record drawings. Table 8 identifies the trunk lines within Tapo Street Area. The estimated existing sewer flows, and the capacity of the identified trunk lines will be used to determine potential system deficiency.

Table 7 Tapo Street Area Existing Sewer Infrastructure
Alamo Street The sewer line from eastern edge of the Project limits to Tapo Street is an 18-in ACP flowing westbound.

Adam Road The sewer line from the eastern edge of the Project limits to Tapo Street is an 8-in ACP flowing westbound.

Apricot Road The sewer line from Tapo Street flowing west down Apricot Road is an 8-in PVC.

Barnard Street The sewer line from the eastern edge of the Project limit to Tapo Steet is an 8-in ACP flowing westbound.

Cochran Street The sewer line from the eastern edge of the Project limit to Tapo street is an 8-in PVC flowing westbound. The sewer trunk main from Tapo Street to Winifred Street is an 18-in PVC flowing westbound.

Industrial Street The Sewer line from Tapo Street to the eastern Project limit is an 8-in ACP flowing eastbound. Sewer line outside of Project limits to the east is an 8-in PVC flowing westbound to SSMH located at the eastern edge of the Project limit.

Los Angeles Avenue The sewer trunk main is 24-in RCP from Arroyo Simi to western edge of the Project limits flowing westbound along the northern edge of Los Angeles Avenue. A second sewer trunk is 18-in ACP from Ralston Street to the eastern edge of Shopping Lane flowing westbound, located on the southern portion of the roadway. The sewer line is 10-in ACP feeding into the 24-in ACP flowing southbound located midway along Los Angeles Avenue.

Shopping Lane The sewer trunk main is 20-in ACP from the eastern edge of the Project limit to Buyers Street flowing westbound.

Tapo Street An 8-in ACP flows south down Tapo Street north of Alamo Street and becomes an 18-in ACP pipe from Alamo Street to Apricot Road. From Apricot Road to Cochran Street, the sewer is collected into a 21-in ACP pipe, which turns west and flows down Cochran 411
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 14
Street. At Eileen Street, an 8-in VCP pipe flows south down Tapo Street until it turns east down Industrial Street.

Buyers Street The sewer line is 20-in ACP from Shopping Lane to Bishop Lane flowing westbound. The sewer line follows the property line after deviating from Buyers Street.

Source: City of Simi Valley GIS & City of Simi Valley Department of Public Works record drawings Table 8 Tapo Street Area Existing Sewer Trunk Lines
Service Area Acreage Existing Main Trunk Line
North of Cochran Avenue, South
of Alamo Street
28 18-in PVC City line along Cochran Street
South of Cochran Avenue, North
of Shopping Lane
121 24-in RCP City line along Los Angeles Avenue
Source: City of Simi Valley GIS & City of Simi Valley Department of Public Works record drawings

2.2.2. Existing Sewer Flows
The City of Simi Valley Department of Public Works provided the peck flow data for the Project area. The information provided is based on existing flow data. The peak flow in cubic feet per second (cfs) is approximate and based on planned future land use per Table 2.2 of the City Sewer Manual & Standard Plans Manual, August 2006. The note below Table 2.2 provides a conversion of EDU to GPD using the following factor:
1 EDU = 275 gal/day
Tables 9, 10, 11, and 12 summarize the estimated peak flow rates for the existing conditions. 412
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 15
Los Angeles Avenue Corridor
Table 9 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor, East of First Street Estimated Existing Flow Rates MANHOLE1 EDU1
Flow Characteristic
(1 EDU=275
gal/d/DU) 2
Average Flow
(gpd)
Flow Rate
(MGD)

UPSTREAM (EAST)
N9-112 1,364 275 375100 0.38
M9-120 24,253 275 6669575 6.67
TOTAL 25617 7.04

DOWNSTREAM TRUNKLINE
(EAST)
N8-136 27,375
275 7528125 7.53
DIFFERENCE 0.48
Table 10 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor, West of First Street Estimated Existing Flow Rates UPSTREAM (WEST) M8-117 13,048 275 3588200 3.59
TOTAL 3.59

DOWNSTREAM TRUNKLINE
(WEST)
M7-186 14,363
275 3949825 3.95
DIFFERENCE 0.36
1 Source: City of Simi Valley, 2022
2 Flow characteristic taken from City of Simi Valley Public Works Agency Sewerage Manual. 413
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 16
Tapo Street Area
Table 11 Tapo Street Area, North of Cochran Street Estimated Existing Flow Rates MANHOLE1 EDU1
Flow Characteristic
(1 EDU=275 gal/d/DU) 2
Average
Flow
(gpd)
Flow Rate
(MGD)

UPSTREAM
(NORTH)
P16-126 275 0 0.00
P16-124 571 275 157025 0.16
P16-145 1,344
275 369600 0.37
P16-158 62 275 17050 0.02
O16-107 56 275 15400 0.02
O16-120 40 275 11000 0.01
TOTAL 2073.00 0.57

DOWNSTREAM

TRUNKLINE
(NORTH)
O15-141 3,736
275 1027400 1.03
DIFFERENCE 0.46
Table 12 Tapo Street Area, South of Cochran Street Estimated Existing Flow Rates

UPSTREAM
(SOUTH)
N15-162 20 275 5500 0.01
N16-141 66 275 18150 0.02
N16-157 328 275 90200 0.09
N16-162 149 275 40975 0.04
N16-159 461 275 126775 0.13
M17-157 9 275 2475 0.00
M17-108 6,773 275 1862575 1.86
TOTAL 2.15

DOWNSTREAM

TRUNKLINE
(SOUTH)
M15-109 8,560 275 2354000 2.35
DIFFERENCE 0.21
1 Source: City of Simi Valley, 2022
2 Flow characteristic taken from City of Simi Valley Public Works Agency Sewerage Manual. 414
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 17

2.2.3. Existing Sewer Capacity Assessment
Each trunk line’s maximum capacity was calculated using the following from the City of Simi Valley Public Works Sewerage Manual:

Pipe Diameter Maximum Depth at Design Peak Flow
Less than 12” 1/2 Pipe Diam.
12” & greater 2/3 Pipe Diam.

Tables 13 and 14 summarize the trunk line maximum flow capacity based on existing pipe size, slope, and material accounting for maximum depth at the design peak.

Table 13 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Trunk Line Maximum Capacity Analysis Corridor Street Pipe
Diameter
Slope (%) Material Roughness
Coefficient
Maximum
Pipe
Capacity
(cfs)
Maximum
Pipe
Capacity
(MGD)
Los Angeles
(WEST)
Los Angeles
Avenue
24-in1 0.60% HOBAS 0.011 17.01 9.15
Los Angeles
(EAST)
Easy Street 32-in1 0.50% ACP/CIPP 0.011 31.91 17.17
1 2/3 full was assumed for calculations
There appears to be no limitations due to trunk line capacity within the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor. All pipe capacities will need to be monitored.

Table 14 Tapo Street Area Trunk Line Maximum Capacity Analysis Corridor Street Pipe
Diameter
(in)
Slope (%) Material Roughness
Coefficient
Maximum
Pipe
Capacity
(cfs)
Maximum
Pipe
Capacity
(MGD)
Tapo (NORTH) Cochran
Street
18-in1 0.44% ACP 0.011 6.46 3.48
Tapo (SOUTH) Railroad 10-in2 0.43% ACP 0.011 1.33 0.86
Tapo (SOUTH) Los Angeles
Avenue
24-in1 0.47% RCP 0.013 12.16 6.54
1 2/3 full was assumed for calculations
2 Simi Valley Public Works assumes 2/3 full for calculating the capacity of the 10-inch pipe.

Within the Tapo Street Area, the conveyance 10-inch pipe under the railroads that feeds into a 24-inch pipe in Los Angeles Avenue will restrict the flow. The pipe capacity will be monitored. Any potential 415
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 18
improvements that connect to this pipe may trigger the need to up the size of the pipe. This will be determined by a project-by-project basis and up to the city’s discretion. 416
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 19

2.3 Water Infrastructure
This section describes the existing water distribution system. Analysis of the existing system is based on as-builts, and reports provided by the water purveyors servicing the two corridor areas.

2.3.1 Existing Water System
Two water purveyors provide water to the City of Simi Valley, Ventura County Waterworks District #8 (WWD8) and Golden State Water Company (GSW). A majority of WWD8’s and GSW’s water supply is purchased from Calleguas, a member of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The city is supplied by local groundwater from 2 basins as well, the Gillibrand Basin and the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin.

The Urban Water Management Plan Act (UWMPA) established in 1983 requires urban water suppliers serving over 3,000 customers or supplying at least 3,000 acre-feet of water annually to prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Both water purveyors fall within these minimum requirements, and in 2020, prepared UWMPs.

According to this UWMP and the Capacity Evaluation and Analysis of Waterworks Distribution System report (2021), WWD8 delivers water through its 12 turnout stations (capacity of 83.4 MGD), 312 miles of water lines, 22 pump stations, and 40 storage tanks (capacity of 43.7 million gallons). Its 2 groundwater wells have a combined capacity of 1.0 MGD.

According to its UWMP , GSWC has 5 connections from Calleguas to the Simi Valley system, totaling a combined capacity of 34.2 MGD.
417
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 20
Los Angeles Avenue Corridor
Table 15 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Existing Water Infrastructure First Street The water main line is a 20-in Asbestos Cement Pipe (ACP) from the southern Project limit to Los Angeles Avenue. The water main line transitions to a 12-in ACP from Los Angeles Avenue to the northern Project limits.

Los Angeles Avenue The water main line is a 16-in steel pipe from Sinaloa Road to First Street. The water main line transitions to a 12-in steel pipe from First Street to Hubbard Street. The water main line transitions to an 8-in ACP from Hubbard Street to 850 feet east of Galt Street, then reduces to a 6-in ACP to Erringer Road.

Sinaloa Road The water main line is a 12-in ACP from the southern Project boundary to northern Project boundary.

Patricia Street The water main line is a 6-in ACP from Patricia Avenue to Los Angeles Avenue.

Patricia Avenue The water main line is a 6-in ACP From Patricia Street to Williams Street.

Duncan Street The water main line is 6-in ACP from southern Project boundary to Los Angeles Avenue.

Galt Street The water main line is 6-in ACP from southern Project boundary to Los Angeles Avenue.

Erringer Road The water main is an 8-in ACP from Patricia Avenue to Heywood Street. GSWC services the area east of Erringer Road.

Source: WWD8 as-builts & City of Simi Valley record drawings Tapo Street Area
Table 16 Tapo Street Area Existing Water Infrastructure Tapo Street The water main is a 10-in line running from Eileen Street to Alamo Street, serving customers west of Tapo Street. East of Tapo Street is served by GSWC.

Source: WWD8 as-builts & City of Simi Valley record drawings

2.3.2 Existing Water Demand
The GSWC UWMP states that the current GSWC Simi Valley service area population in 2020 was 45,764, with a per capita demand of 126 GPCD and total water demand of 5.8 MGD. Of this total demand, 4.8 MGD was purchased from Calleguas, and 1 MGD was extracted from Simi Valley Groundwater Basin wells.

The WWD8 UWMP states that the current WWD8 Simi Valley service area population in 2020 was 94,738, with a per capita demand of 168 GPCD and a total water demand of 15.5 MGD.

The scope of this Specific Plan indicates that the majority of the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor will be within the WWD8 service area. The Tapo Street Area is serviced by both purveyors. 418
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 21

2.4 Dry Utility Infrastructure

2.4.1 Electrical & Natural Gas
The study area is serviced by Southern California Edison (SCE) for electrical power and SoCalGas for natural gas. Based on review of available record drawings we understand the following existing infrastructure is within the street corridors.

Table 17 Specific Plan Area Existing Electrical Infrastructure Los Angeles Avenue Corridor
Los Angeles Avenue Underground electrical and underground telecommunication lines from Sinaloa Street to Erringer Road.

Erringer Road Underground electrical and underground telecommunication lines from Heywood Street to Los Angeles Avenue.

Galt Street Overhead electrical lines transitioning underground prior to Los Angeles Avenue.

Duncan Street Overhead electrical lines transitioning underground prior to Los Angeles Avenue.

Hubbard Street Overhead electrical lines transitioning underground prior to Los Angeles Avenue.

Williams Street Underground electrical lines from Patricia Avenue to Los Angeles Avenue.

Patricia Street Underground electrical lines from Patricia Avenue to Los Angeles Avenue. 1st Street Underground electrical and underground telecommunication lines from Arroyo Simi to Agnew Street.
3rd Street Overhead electrical lines transitioning underground prior to Los Angeles Avenue.
4th Street overhead electrical lines transitioning underground prior to Los Angeles Avenue.
5th Street underground electrical lines from California Avenue to Los Angeles Avenue.

Sinaloa Street Overhead electrical lines transitioning underground prior to Los Angeles Avenue.

Tapo Street Area
Tapo Street overhead electrical lines from Alamo Street to Cochran Street. There appears to be underground telecommunications and electrical lines from Cochran Street to Shopping Lane.

Alamo Street underground telecommunications and electrical lines from El Paso Avenue to Tapo Street. There appears to be overhead electrical lines from Fairbanks Avenue to Tapo Street.

Adam Road overhead electrical and telecommunications lines along the length of Adam Road.

Barnard Street overhead electrical and telecommunications lines along the length of Barnard Street.

Eve Road overhead electrical and telecommunications lines along the length of Eve Road.

Apricot Road overhead electrical and telecommunications lines transitioning underground prior to Tapo Street.

Cochran Street overhead electrical and telecommunications lines along the length of Cochran Street
Eileen Street underground telecommunications and electrical lines from Winfred Street to Tapo Street
Alpine Street overhead electrical lines transitioning underground prior to Tapo Street. 419
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 22
Industrial Street overhead electrical lines transitioning underground prior to Tapo Street.

Valley Fair overhead electrical and telecommunication lines transitioning underground prior to Tapo Street.

Los Angeles Avenue underground electrical and telecommunications lines from Bishop Lane to Angus Avenue. There appears to be overhead electrical lines from Angus Avenue transitioning underground prior to the Rancho Santa Susana Community Park.

Source: City of Simi Valley Department of Public Works record drawings Table 18 Specific Plan Area Existing Natural Gas Infrastructure Los Angeles Avenue Corridor SoCalGas has a 8-inch high-pressure distribution line along Los Angeles Avenue for the entire extent of the street within the corridor boundaries.

Tapo Street Area SoCalGas has a 8-inch high-pressure distribution line along Los Angeles Avenue for the entire extent of the street within the corridor boundaries.

Source: SoCalGas Gas Asset Map

3. SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS
The purpose of the proposed conditions evaluation is to determine potential impacts related to the proposed zoning changes associated with the Envision Simi Specific Plan. Based on the proposed zoning changes, surface water runoff is anticipated to decrease overall while sewer, water, and dry utility demands are anticipated to increase. Through mitigation measures outlined in the 2012 General Plan, planned growth of GSWC and WWD8, CIP identified in the Master Plan of Drainage, targeted growth of WQCP , in coordination with SoCalGas and SCE, and through city permitting processes, the planned zoning changes will be less than significant.

3.1 Storm Drain Infrastructure

3.1.1 Hydrology & Water Quality
All storm drain facilities designed within the Specific Plan Areas will be required to conform with the Ventura County Design Hydrology Manual and the Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (TGM). These documents will guide the allowable stormwater runoff from the site as well as Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMP) that need to be installed on site. The TGM outlines design objectives to reduce the hydrologic and water quality impacts associated with land development.

The LID requirements for proposed projects within the Specific Plan Area would outline the stormwater treatment post-construction BMPs required to control pollutants. Project BMPs will mitigate the stormwater runoff quality and quantity. The LID requirements for the Project Site would outline the stormwater treatment post-construction BMPs required to control pollutants associated with storm events up to the 85th percentile – 24-hr storm event, per the County of Ventura Technical Guidance Manual and Ventura County Hydrology Manual. The Project BMPs implemented will control runoff without an increase relative to the existing condition.

The high level of impervious areas within the Specific Plan Areas is expected to decrease due to the intended future zoning. This change will lead to a decrease in storm water flow rates being generated by private development. The study areas identified in the Specific Plan discharge into the Arroyo Simi 420
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 23
channel. Based on the Master Plan of Drainage, the existing infrastructure can generally convey the 10-, 25- and 50- year storm events.

The proposed projects within the Specific Plan Area are not anticipated to have a significant net impact on stormwater flows. Also, in accordance with City and County requirements, projects would be required to implement BMPs to manage stormwater runoff in accordance with LID guidelines. The City of Simi Valley review projects on a case-by-case basis to ensure sufficient local and regional infrastructure is available to accommodate stormwater runoff. Implementation of LID BMPs would, at a minimum, decrease runoff to match the 10-yr flow rate in the proposed condition.

During the design phase for projects within the study areas, and on a project-by-project basis, the developer will need to assess if the current infrastructure can support the new project in compliance with the current regulatory requirements.

3.2 Sewer & Wastewater Infrastructure

3.2.1 Proposed Wastewater System Flows
This analysis calculates the estimated daily average and peak sewer flows for the study area. The Specific Plan expects an additional 9,592 dwelling units in total for both corridors. In addition, 70% buildout was assumed to be a realistic capacity for this Specific Plan area and was factored into the proposed sewer generation calculations. For the commercial component of mixed-use applications, a floor area ratio (FAR) was used to account for multiple levels of buildings. The adjusted area was multiplied by maximum density (taken from the Residential Development Capacity summary provided in the Specific Plan) to calculate a total amount of dwelling units. Table 2.2 from the Simi Valley Sewer Manual was used to assign an EDU number for each type of land use outlined in the Specific PlanThe same conversion from section 2.2.2 was used to convert EDU to flow. Peaking factor is based on the City of Simi Valley Sewer Standard Plate, SV 40-310. Refer to Table 19 & 20 for the estimated sewer generation flow rates.

The analysis was limited to the Specific Plan Area only, tributary flows upstream of the Specific Plan Area were not known and were not included in the analysis. For accuracy, a sewer study may be required. 421
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 24
Table 19 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Estimated Proposed Sewage Generation Proposed
Zoning
Area
(ac)
Adjusted
area - 70%
buildout
(ac) FAR
Max
Density
(du/ac)
EDU
(Shop
and Store
Buildings)
EDU
(Multiple
Family)
Flow
Characteristic
(1 EDU=275
gal/d/DU)
Average
Flow (MGD)
Peaking
Factor
Peak Flow
Rate (MGD)
WEST
DC (Downtown
Corridor) 71.2 49.8 0.30 45 0.33 0.75 275 0.52 2.70 1.41 DMU
(Downtown
Mixed Use) 0 0.0 0.30 55 0.33 0.75 275 0 0 0.00
EAST
DC (Downtown
Corridor) 28 19.6 0.30 45 0.33 0.75 275 0.32 3.00 0.62
DMU
(Downtown
Mixed Use) 61 42.7 0.30 55 0.33 0.75 275 0.85 2.70 1.48 TOTAL 160 112 1.28 3.51
Table 20 Tapo Street Area Estimated Proposed Sewage Generation Proposed
Zoning
Area
(ac)
Adjusted
area - 70%
buildout
(ac)
Land Use
Avg
Coefficient
(cfs/ac) FAR
Max
Density
(du/ac)
EDU (Shop
and Store
Buildings)
EDU
(Multiple
Family)
Flow
Characteristic
(1 EDU=275
gal/d/DU)
Average
Flow
(MGD)
Peaking
Factor
Peak
Flow
Rate
(MGD)
NORTH
TKF (Tapo
Kadota Fig) 26.0 18.2 0.0 0.50 45 0.33 0.75 275 0.21 3.00 0.62 TMU (Tapo
Mixed Use) 7.1 5.0 0.0 0.30 55 0.33 0.75 275 0.06 3.20 0.20 SOUTH
TMU (Tapo
Mixed Use) 84.0 58.8 0.0 0.30 55 0.33 0.75 275 0.76 2.60 1.96 TBV (Tapo
Business
Village) 32.4 22.7 0.008 0.32 0 0.33 0.75 275 0.12 3.10 0.36 TOTAL 150 105 1.14 3.15
422
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 25
The anticipated increase in sewer flows, as projected from the estimated proposed figures (Table 19) and the modeled sewer flow provided by the City of Simi Valley Public Works, amounts to 0.43 MGD within the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor. Within the Tapo Street Area the anticipated increase in sewer flows is

0.48 MGD.

Table 21 outlines the summary of the city’s modeled sewer flows and estimated proposed sewer generation for all Project areas, as well as the net increase.

Table 21 Summary
Corridor
Proposed
Average Daily
Flow (MGD)
Proposed Peak
Flow (MGD)
City of Simi Valley
Modeled Flow
(MGD)
Average Flow Difference
between Modeled and
Proposed (MGD)
Los Angeles (West) 0.52 1.41 0.36 +0.16
Los Angeles (East) 0.75 2.10 0.48 +0.27
LA TOTAL 1.28 3.51 0.85 +0.43
Tapo (North) 0.27 0.82 0.46 -0.19
Tapo (South) 0.87 2.33 0.21 +0.66
TAPO TOTAL 1.14 3.15 0.66 +0.48
SPECIFIC PLAN TOTAL 2.42 4.20 1.51 0.91
The expected increase in sewer generation is being quantified as a percentage of the overall pipe capacity. The sewer generation increase values are used because the upstream sewer flow outside the two corridors is not within the scope of this report. Table 21 below shows a summary of the expected increase in sewer generation relative to the overall trunk line capacities.

Table 22 Specific Plan Area Trunk Line Analysis
Corridor Street Pipe
Diameter
(in)
Slope1 Material Sewer
Generation
Increase (cfs)
Maximum Pipe
Capacity (cfs)
Increase /
Capacity
Los Angeles
(West)
Los Angeles
Avenue
24-in 0.60% HOBAS +0.16 17.01 0.94%
Los Angeles
(East)
Easy Street 32-in 0.50% ACP/CIPP +0.27 31.91 0.84%
Tapo
(North)
Cochran
Street
18-in 0.44% ACP -0.19 6.46 -2.94%
Tapo
(South)
Los Angeles
Avenue
24-in 0.47% RCP +0.66 12.16 5.42%
1 Slope was derived from available as built information.

3.2.2 Proposed Sewer & Wastewater System
The analysis does not consider the impacts on the existing system beyond the Specific Plan area and the existing upstream demands. Based on the available information and input from Simi Valley Public Works, there are not anticipated impacts on the Los Angeles Corridor sewer trunk lines. Due to an existing 10- inch sewer line within the southern Tapo Street Corridor there are anticipated limitation of capacity.

Based on Water Code section 13300 the sewer treatment capacity plant will be required to plan for an increase in capacity once it reaches 75% average dry weather daily design flow. We understand the 423
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 26
treatment plants average daily design flow is 12.5 MGD. 75% of the average daily design flow would equate to 9.375 MGD. The metered average dry weather daily sewer flows entering the treatment plant as of 2023 was recorded to be 8 MGD. This results in a remaining 1.375 MGD while within the 75% average dry weather daily flow threshold. The estimated average daily sewer flow for the Specific Plan totals 2.42 MGD.

Based Water Code section 13300, the Specific Plan Project will likely trigger requirements to increase the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. The determination and method of the improvement will be under the discretion of the City of Simi Valley. A Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for the fiscal year 2023-2024 includes multiple projects to replace the existing asbestos cement sewer pipes. Subsequent projects under the proposed Specific Plan will be evaluated based off the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). This MND enforces what mitigation is necessary to ensure less-than-significant effects to the environment. During the design phase for projects within the study areas, and on a project-by-project basis, the developer will need to assess if the current infrastructure can support the new project in compliance with the current regulatory requirements.

3.3 Water Infrastructure

3.3.1 Proposed Water System Growth
The GSWC UWMP is expecting a population increase of almost 6,000 through the year 2045, with the water demand to increase to 5.9 MGD from 5.3 MGD. The conclusion of the UWMP states that GSW will be able to provide a stable and reliable water service through the year 2045. This factors in the population growth and a normal, single dry, and five consecutive dry years over a 25-year period. Note that this past year, the City experienced a significant drought and implemented many water restrictions.

It is not certain whether the conclusions reached in the UWMP include the change in zoning resulting from this UWMP and the potential change in demand resulting from the change in land use.

The WWD8 UWMP is expecting a project population growth of 0.5% per year, with a predicted population of 104,369 in 2045. The estimated total water demand based off this population increase is

21.6 MGD from 15.5 MGD. In addition, an analysis of WWD8’s services during a 2045 four-year multiple- dry year event determined that WWD8 will have adequate supply. Each new development within the WWD8 jurisdiction will be required to prepare a hydraulic water study to determine capacity, demand, and supply issues related to the project.

3.3.2 Proposed Water System Demand
To study the anticipated water demand increase within the study area, a 1:1 ratio was applied to the calculated peak sewer generation rates. This implies an anticipated peak water demand is 6.66 MGD for the Specific Plan area. The Tapo Street Area is serviced by both GSWC and WWD8. Based on the water purveyors planned expansions, the anticipated increase within the corridor, 3.15 MGD, is projected to be supplied by the two water purveyors. The Los Angeles Avenue Corridor water supply is from WWD8.

Based on the 2020 UWMP conclusion on projected water demands, the WWD8 can supply the anticipated water demand increase of 3.51 MGD.

Based on the new development capacities set forth in the Specific Plan, the water demand will increase from current conditions. Through the implementation of the Urban Water Management Plan the expected increase based on the Specific Plan is accounted for if the areas served by the water district 424
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 27
outside of the Specific Plan area do not exceed the difference in the total projected water usage and the net increase per the Specific Plan. This impact would be less-than-significant levels through implementation of the policies set forth in the General Plan and following current regulatory framework.

The Specific Plan will meet mitigated negative declaration for the proposed development capacities.

Based on our analysis of the defined Specific Plan areas and with the understanding that the parameters set forth in the General Plan are being followed, the potential increase in demands for both WWD8 and GSW’s potable water distribution system will be less than significant.

During the design phase for projects within the study areas, and on a project-by-project basis, the developer will need to assess if the current infrastructure can support the new project in compliance with the current regulatory requirements.

3.4 Dry Utility Infrastructure

3.4.1 Electrical
Southern California Edison (SCE) is the sole electrical purveyor within the City of Simi Valley. Any decision to upgrade or make changes to the existing infrastructure to meet a change in electrical power demand resulting from the change in zoning will be determined by SCE in coordination with the city once the expected demand from proposed development within the specific plan is known.

3.4.2 Natural Gas
It is recommended that the natural gas demand be estimated once proposed site plans for developments within the Specific Plan Areas are known and that will serve letters be requested from SoCalGas to ensure that sufficient demand is available to service the proposed developments.

4. CONCLUSION
The proposed zoning changes under the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan will increase the demand of potable water, sewer flows, and increase the demand of dry utilities while decreasing the runoff conditions.

The Specific Plan is not anticipated to have significant net impacts on stormwater flows. All new projects will be required to conform to the City and County requirements to manage stormwater. Based on the high-level analysis and due to the decrease in population, it is concluded that the existing water infrastructure facilities have the capacity to support the proposed population growth as supported by the 2012 General Plan through the Infrastructure and Utility Implementation Program. Consistent with Policy IU-5 in the 2012 General Plan, the City shall maintain the Sewer Management Plan and Sewer Treatment Plant Condition Assessment. Following the Water Code 13300, the City will monitor the average dry weather flow entering the treatment plant and remain under 75% of the treatment capacity,

9.375 MGD. This analysis is not project specific; instead, it is based on zoning. During the design phase for projects within the corridors, and on a project-by-project basis, the developer will need to perform a project specific analysis to assess if the current infrastructure can support the new project in compliance with current regulatory requirements.
425
Los Angeles Ave Corridor & Tapo St Area Specific Plan September 15, 2023 Infrastructure Technical Report REV June 5, 2024
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 28

5. REFERENCES
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. (2019) Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Simi Valley, Simi Valley Water Quality Control Plant Discharge to the Arroyo Simi. Retreated September 2023, from
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/board_decisions/tentative_orders/individual/np des/
City of Simi Valley. General Plan, June 2012. Retrieved September 2023, from https://www.simivalley.org/departments/environmental-services/planning- division/documents-applications-and-development-activity/general-plan County of Ventura Public Works. 1965 Sewerage Manual (Updated 2003). Retrieved November 2022, from https://www.vcpublicworks.org/es/standardsandmanuals/ Kasraie Consulting. City of Simi Valley Master Plan of Drainage 2014. Retrieved November 2022, from https://www.simivalley.org/departments/public-works/public-works-documents Kennedy Jenks. (2021) 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Waterworks District No. 8, City of Simi Valley. Retrieved November 2022, from https://www.simivalley.org/departments/public- works/waterworks-vcwwd-no-8
Simi Valley County Sanitation District. Sewer as-built record drawings.

Simi Valley County Sanitation District. Storm drain as-built record drawings.

Simi Valley County Sanitation District. WWD8 domestic water as-built record drawings.

SoCal Gas. ArcGIS map. Retrieved from
https://socalgas.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=12cb8fddd6184f1bafc56 5ed09e4f631
Simi Valley Sanitation Engineering. (1985, June). Simi Valley County Sanitation District Final Sewer Master Plan Update. Retrieved November 2022, from
https://www.simivalley.org/departments/public-works/public-works-engineering/sanitation- engineering/sewer-design-drawing-standards
Tully and Young, Zanjero. (2021) Simi Valley Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Golden State Water Company. Retrieved November 2022, from
https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/uwmp_plans.asp?cmd=2020
Wood Rodgers. (2021) Ventura Country Waterworks District No. 8 – Capacity Evaluation and Analysis of Waterworks Distribution System. Retrieved October 2023, from WWD8 426

SIMI VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
O: 213.418.0201
F: 213.266.5294
www.kpff.com

LOS ANGELES AVENUE CORRIDOR

STORM DRAIN MAP

FIRST STREET

EASY STREET

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

EASY WAY

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS

SS SS SS
SS SS
SS SS
SS

SS SS SS

ARROYO SIMI

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SS SS SS SS SS

RAILROAD

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

ERRINGER ROAD
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS

SS SS SS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SSSS
SSSS

SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS

LOS ANGELES AVENUE
SS
SS
SS

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

HUBBARD STREET

DUNCAN STREET

GALT STREET
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS SS SS
SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SS

SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS SS

SS SS SS

DONVILLE AVE

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS SS SS
SS

SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SS

ARROYO SIMI

FIFTH STREET

SINALOA ROAD
39" ACP
8" ACP
39" ACP
8" ACP
12" PVC
12" ABS
12" ACP
39" ACP
10" ACP
8" PVC
24" ACP
24" RCP
27" RCP
27" RCP
27" RCP
39" ACP
36" ACP
36" ACP
36" ACP
8" PVC
33" ACP
8" PVC
33" ACP
33" ACP
33" ACP
8" ACP
8" ACP
8" PVC
FIGURE 1: SPECIFIC PLAN VICINITY MAP
Source: Gruen Associates, City of Simi Valley

SIMI VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
O: 213.418.0201
F: 213.266.5294
www.kpff.com

LOS ANGELES AVENUE CORRIDOR

STORM DRAIN MAP

SANITARY SEWER MAP
FIGURE 3:

FIGURE 2:

Specific Plan Aerial Extent with Key Features
Los Angeles Avenue Corridor
Tapo Street Area

SIMI VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
O: 213.418.0201
F: 213.266.5294
www.kpff.com

LOS ANGELES AVENUE CORRIDOR

STORM DRAIN MAP

FIRST STREET

EASY STREET

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

EASY WAY

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS

SS SS SS
SS SS
SS SS
SS

SS SS SS

ARROYO SIMI

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SS SS SS SS SS

RAILROAD

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

ERRINGER ROAD
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS

SS SS SS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SSSS
SSSS

SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS

LOS ANGELES AVENUE
SS
SS
SS

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

HUBBARD STREET

DUNCAN STREET

GALT STREET
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS SS SS
SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SS

SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS SS

SS SS SS

DONVILLE AVE

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS SS SS
SS

SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SS

ARROYO SIMI

FIFTH STREET

SINALOA ROAD
39" ACP
8" ACP
39" ACP
8" ACP
12" PVC
12" ABS
12" ACP
39" ACP
10" ACP
8" PVC
24" ACP
24" RCP
27" RCP
27" RCP
27" RCP
39" ACP
36" ACP
36" ACP
36" ACP
8" PVC
33" ACP
8" PVC
33" ACP
33" ACP
33" ACP
8" ACP
8" ACP
8" PVC
FIGURE 3: SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING ZONING
§¨¦118

ERRINGER RD
1ST ST

FITZGERALD RD

COCHRAN ST

ROYAL AV

LOS ANGELES AV

ALAMO ST

SINALOA RD
Arroyo Simi
Rail
Specific Plan Area Boundaries
City Boundaries
Zoning Overlays
(BP)
(LAAPO)
(NVD) + (LAAPO)
(LAAPO) + (SP)
(MU) + (LAAPO)
Commercial and Industrial Zones
CO - Commercial Office
CPD - Commercial Planned Development
LI - Light Industrial
Residential Zones
RL - Residential Low Density
RM - Residential Medium Density
O
Source: Gruen Associates, City of Simi Valley
Tapo Street Area
Los Angeles Avenue Corridor

FIRST STREET

EASY STREET

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

EASY WAY

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS

SS SS SS
SS SS
SS SS
SS

SS SS SS

ARROYO SIMI

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SS SS SS SS SS

RAILROAD

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

ERRINGER ROAD
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS

SS SS SS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SSSS
SSSS

SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS

LOS ANGELES AVENUE
SS
SS
SS

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

HUBBARD STREET

DUNCAN STREET

GALT STREET
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS SS SS
SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SS

SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS SS

SS SS SS

DONVILLE AVE

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS SS SS
SS

SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SS

ARROYO SIMI

FIFTH STREET

SINALOA ROAD
39" ACP
8" ACP
39" ACP
8" ACP
12" PVC
12" ABS
12" ACP
39" ACP
10" ACP
8" PVC
24" ACP
24" RCP
27" RCP
27" RCP
27" RCP
39" ACP
36" ACP
36" ACP
36" ACP
8" PVC
33" ACP
8" PVC
33" ACP
33" ACP
33" ACP
8" ACP
8" ACP
8" PVC
FIGURE 3: SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING ZONING
§¨¦118

ERRINGER RD
1ST ST

FITZGERALD RD

COCHRAN ST

ROYAL AV

LOS ANGELES AV

ALAMO ST

SINALOA RD
Arroyo Simi
Rail
Specific Plan Area Boundaries
City Boundaries
Zoning Overlays
(BP)
(LAAPO)
(NVD) + (LAAPO)
(LAAPO) + (SP)
(MU) + (LAAPO)
Commercial and Industrial Zones
CO - Commercial Office
CPD - Commercial Planned Development
LI - Light Industrial
Residential Zones
RL - Residential Low Density
RM - Residential Medium Density
O
Source: Gruen Associates, City of Simi Valley
Tapo Street Area
Los Angeles Avenue Corridor

SIMI VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
O: 213.418.0201
F: 213.266.5294
www.kpff.com

LOS ANGELES AVENUE CORRIDOR

STORM DRAIN MAP

FIRST STREET

EASY STREET

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

EASY WAY

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS

SS SS SS
SS SS
SS SS
SS

SS SS SS

ARROYO SIMI

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SS SS SS SS SS

RAILROAD

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

ERRINGER ROAD
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS

SS SS SS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SSSS
SSSS

SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS

LOS ANGELES AVENUE
SS
SS
SS

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

HUBBARD STREET

DUNCAN STREET

GALT STREET
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS SS SS
SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SS

SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS SS

SS SS SS

DONVILLE AVE

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS SS SS
SS

SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SS

ARROYO SIMI

FIFTH STREET

SINALOA ROAD
39" ACP
8" ACP
39" ACP
8" ACP
12" PVC
12" ABS
12" ACP
39" ACP
10" ACP
8" PVC
24" ACP
24" RCP
27" RCP
27" RCP
27" RCP
39" ACP
36" ACP
36" ACP
36" ACP
8" PVC
33" ACP
8" PVC
33" ACP
33" ACP
33" ACP
8" ACP
8" ACP
8" PVC
FIGURE 4: SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED ZONING
Source: Gruen Associates, City of Simi Valley
430
HIGHWAY 118

COCHRAN STREET

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

ARROYO SIMI

FIRST STREET

ERRINGER ROAD

SINALOA ROAD

RAILROAD

SIMI VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
O: 213.418.0201
F: 213.266.5294
www.kpff.com

LOS ANGELES AVENUE CORRIDOR

STORM DRAIN MAP
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SDSD
SD
SD

THREE CATCH

BASINS AT LOS

ANGELES / FIRST

INTERSECTION
SD SD
SD
SD

ONE CATCH BASINS

AT LOS ANGELES /

PATRICIA

INTERSECTION
SD
SD
SD SD

TWO CATCH

BASINS AT LOS

ANGELES / DUNCAN

INTERSECTION

SPECIFIC PLAN AREA

STORM DRAIN PIPE

FEMA FLOODZONE

VCWPD REDLINE CHANNEL

FLOW DIRECTION
LEGEND:

SD
SD
FIGURE 5:

SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS -

LOS ANGELES AVENUE CORRIDOR
431

COCHRAN STREET
HIGHWAY 118

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

TAPO STREET

RALSTON STREET

RAILROAD

ARROYO SIMI

ALAMO STREET

SIMI VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
O: 213.418.0201
F: 213.266.5294
www.kpff.com

TAPO STREET CORRIDOR

STORM DRAIN MAP
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

SD SD SD

SPECIFIC PLAN AREA

STORM DRAIN PIPE

FEMA FLOODZONE

VCWPD REDLINE CHANNEL

FLOW DIRECTION
LEGEND:

SD
SD
FIGURE 6:

SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS -

TAPO STREET AREA
432

SIMI VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
O: 213.418.0201
F: 213.266.5294
www.kpff.com

LOS ANGELES AVENUE CORRIDOR

STORM DRAIN MAP

FIRST STREET

EASY STREET

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

EASY WAY

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS

SS SS SS
SS SS
SS SS
SS

SS SS SS

ARROYO SIMI

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SS SS SS SS SS

RAILROAD

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

ERRINGER ROAD
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS

SS SS SS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SSSS
SSSS

SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS

LOS ANGELES AVENUE
SS
SS
SS

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

HUBBARD STREET

DUNCAN STREET

GALT STREET
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS SS SS
SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SS

SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS SS

SS SS SS

DONVILLE AVE

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS SS SS
SS

SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SS

ARROYO SIMI

FIFTH STREET

SINALOA ROAD
32" ACP
8" ACP
39" ACP
8" ACP
12" PVC
12" ABS
12" ACP
39" ACP
10" ACP
8" PVC
24" ACP
24" RCP
24" RCP
24" RCP
39" ACP
36" ACP
36" ACP
36" ACP
8" PVC
33" ACP
8" PVC
33" ACP
33" ACP
33" ACP
8" ACP
8" ACP
8" PVC

LOS ANGELES AVENUE CORRIDOR
FIGURE 7:

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY - 160 ACRES
LEGEND

SS SS SS SS SS SS
SANITARY SEWER LINE >24"

SS SS SS SS SS SS
SANITARY SEWER LINE <24"

FLOW DIRECTION

SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE

SPECIFIC PLAN EXISITNG SEWER SYSTEMS -

STUDY AREA SERVICED BY
32" ACP SEWER TRUNK LINE
SSSS
SS

SEWER TRUNK LINE
SSSSSS

STUDY AREA SERVICED BY
24" HOBAS SEWER TRUNK LINE
Source: City of Simi Valley GIS Sewer Map

CALIFORNIA AVENUE
MH M9-120

6.98 MGD
MH N9-112

0.39 MGD
32" ACP TRUNKLINE
N8-136

7.88 MGD
MH M8-117

3.76 MGD
24" HOBAS TRUNKLINE
MH: M7-186

4.14 MGD
433

LOS ANGELES AVENUE CORRIDOR

STORM DRAIN MAP
MH P16-126

0.0 MGD
MH P16-124

0.16 MGD
MH P16-145

0.39 MGD
MH P16-158

0.02 MGD
MH O16-107

0.02 MGD
MH O16-120

0.01 MGD
18" PVC TRUNKLINE
MH O15-141

1.08 MGD
MH N15-162

0.01 MGD
MH N16-141

0.02 MGD
MH N16-157

0.09 MGD
MH M17-108

1.95 MGD
MH M17-157

0.0 MGD
MH N16-162

0.04 MGD
MH N16-159

0.13 MGD
24" RCP TRUNKLINE
M15-109

2.35 MGD
SS

ALAMO STREET

ADAM ROAD

BARNARD STREET
HIGHWAY 18

EVE ROAD

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SS
SS
SS
18" ACP
8" ACP
15" ACP
SS
8" ACP
8" PVC
SS

APRICOT ROAD

COCHRAN STREET
21" ACP
SS SS
8" PVC
TRUNK LINE:
18" PVC
SS
8" VCP

EILEEN STREET

SSSSSSSS

SS SS SS SS
8" VCP
8" ACP
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
8" PVC
10" PVC
10" ACP
24" RCP
SS SS
8" PVC
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
18" ACP
20" ACP
21" PVC

VALLEY FAIR STREET

INDUSTRIAL STREET

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

TAPO STREET

PARK STREET

BUYERS STREET

BISHOP LANE
FIGURE 2:

TAPO STREET CORRIDOR
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY - 160 ACRES
LEGEND

SS SS SS SS SS SS
SANITARY SEWER LINE >24"

SS SS SS SS SS SS
SANITARY SEWER LINE <24"

FLOW DIRECTION

SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
SSSS

SIMI VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
O: 213.418.0201
F: 213.266.5294
www.kpff.com

LOS ANGELES AVENUE CORRIDOR

STORM DRAIN MAP

SANITARY SEWER MAP
FIGURE 1:

FIGURE 8

SPECIFIC PLAN EXISITNG SEWER SYSTEMS -

TAPO STREET AREA
8" PVC

STUDY AREA SERVICED BY
24" RCP SEWER TRUNK LINE
SS

SEWER TRUNK LINE

STUDY AREA SERVICED BY
18" PVC SEWER TRUNK LINE
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
Source: City of Simi Valley GIS Sewer Map
434
HIGHWAY 118

COCHRAN STREET

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

ARROYO SIMI

FIRST STREET

ERRINGER ROAD

SINALOA ROAD

RAILROAD

SIMI VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
O: 213.418.0201
F: 213.266.5294
www.kpff.com

LOS ANGELES AVENUE CORRIDOR

STORM DRAIN MAP
LEGEND
WATERWORKS DISTRICT #8

GOLDEN STATE WATER

SPECIFIC PLAN

FIGURE 9:

SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING WATER SYSTEMS -

LOS ANGELES AVENUE CORRIDOR
HIGHWAY 118

COCHRAN STREET

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

ARROYO SIMI

FIRST STREET

ERRINGER ROAD

SINALOA ROAD

RAILROAD
HIGHWAY 118

COCHRAN STREET

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

ARROYO SIMI

FIRST STREET

ERRINGER ROAD

SINALOA ROAD

RAILROAD
LEGEND
WATERWORKS DISTRICT #8

GOLDEN STATE WATER

SPECIFIC PLAN

WWWWWWWWW
20" WWD8

W W W W W W W W W W W W
16" WWD8

HUBBARD
STREET
12" WWD8
GALT
STREET
8" WWD8
6" WWD8
435

COCHRAN STREET
HIGHWAY 118

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

TAPO STREET

RALSTON STREET

RAILROAD

ARROYO SIMI

ALAMO STREET

SIMI VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
O: 213.418.0201
F: 213.266.5294
www.kpff.com

TAPO STREET CORRIDOR

STORM DRAIN MAP
LEGEND
WATERWORKS DISTRICT #8

GOLDEN STATE WATER

SPECIFIC PLAN
FIGURE 10:

SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING WATER SYSTEMS -

TAPO STREET AREA
10" GSW
436

SIMI VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
O: 213.418.0201
F: 213.266.5294
www.kpff.com

LOS ANGELES AVENUE CORRIDOR

STORM DRAIN MAP

FIRST STREET

EASY STREET

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

EASY WAY

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS

SS SS SS
SS SS
SS SS
SS

SS SS SS

ARROYO SIMI

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SS SS SS SS SS

RAILROAD

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

LOS ANGELES AVENUE

ERRINGER ROAD
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS

SS SS SS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SSSS
SSSS

SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS

LOS ANGELES AVENUE
SS
SS
SS

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

PATRICIA AVE

HUBBARD STREET

DUNCAN STREET

GALT STREET
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS SS SS
SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SS

SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS SS

SS SS SS

DONVILLE AVE

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS SS SS
SS

SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SS

ARROYO SIMI

FIFTH STREET

SINALOA ROAD
39" ACP
8" ACP
39" ACP
8" ACP
12" PVC
12" ABS
12" ACP
39" ACP
10" ACP
8" PVC
24" ACP
24" RCP
27" RCP
27" RCP
27" RCP
39" ACP
36" ACP
36" ACP
36" ACP
8" PVC
33" ACP
8" PVC
33" ACP
33" ACP
33" ACP
8" ACP
8" ACP
8" PVC
FIGURE 11: MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE CIP
Source: Kasraie Consulting, City of Simi Valley
437
EXHIBIT 1
Planning Commission Package
SP-S-2024-0002/ GPA-2024-0002/ Z-S-2024-0002
September 4, 2024
INDEX
Resolution No. SVPC 09-2024
*Envision Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment Exhibit, Zoning Map & Amendment Exhibit, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been removed from this Exhibit to avoid duplication.

September 4, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes
September 4, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report
**The public hearing procedure, draft resolution, Exhibit A-E, and Exhibit 1-3 have been removed to avoid duplication.

September 4, 2024 Supplemental Staff Reports
438

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) RESOLUTION NO. SVPC 10-2024
A

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY

OF SIMI VALLEY RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL

ADOPT THE ENVISION SIMI VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-S-
2024-0002); AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN (GPA- 2024-0002) TO

CHANGE THE LAND USE MAP, AND THE MOBILITY AND

INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE
SPECIFIC PLAN; AMEND THE ZONE MAP AND SIMI VALLEY
MUNICIPAL CODE (Z-S-2024-0002) TO REMOVE THE TAPO AND
LAAPO OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS; AMEND THE ZONING

MAP TO IDENTIFY AREAS LOCATED WITHIN THE SPECIFIC
PLAN; AND ADOPT OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION (MND) AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT
T
HE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

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

A. T
he City of Simi Valley prepared the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan to create a community vision for the development of areas of Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street, including the provision of new housing, commercial, and recreational opportunities. The project includes: General Plan Amendment (GPA -2024-0002) to change the land use map, and the Mobility and Infrastructure Elements to accommodate the Specific Plan; and Zone Text Amendment and Zone Changes (Z -S-2024-0002) to remove the TAPO and LAAPO overlay zoning districts, and amend the Zoning Maps for the areas located within the Specific Plan (collectively, the “project”); B. The project 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 September 4, 2024; E. On September 4, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Specific Plan , General Plan amendments, Zone Text amendments and Zone changes including, without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and public testimony; and 30 439
RES. NO. SVPC 10-2024

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) F. This Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence presented to the Commission at its September 4, 2024, hearing including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Director.

SECTION 2: Specific Plan, General Plan Amendments, Zone Text and Zoning Map Amendments Adoption Findings. Pursuant to the General Plan Amendment Finding (General Plan, Chapter 1, page 1- 17), SVMC § 9- 56.060 and § 9- 73.070 (Exhibit E) , the Planning Commission makes the following findings:

A. T
he proposed General Plan Amendments are compliant with the requirements for an Amendment: the changes are in the public interest, as the public would benefit from the goals of the Specific Plan. These include encouraging housing of different types for a variety of ages and socioeconomic income levels as the rental vacancy in the City is low and housing prices are high. Other goals such as creating indoor and outdoor recreation opportunities, fostering transit use, repurposing underutilized properties , and creating a sense of place would be beneficial to the public with added economic activity, recreation opportunities, and increased funds for the provision of public services. No development projects are currently proposed with the Specific Plan area and any development resulting from the Specific Plan would be required to adhere to all applicable law . An Initial Environmental Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and released for public comment from August 1 to August 30, 2024 (Exhibit 3).

B. T
he Specific Plan will be consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan following the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map.

C. T
he project is consistent with the purpose, intent, and goals of the General Plan as discussed below:

1. Goal LU-1: Growth and Change. The proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the City’s 2021- 2029 Housing Element Update which sets forth a plan to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation and identifies Opportunity Areas where new housing developments may be concentrated. Roughly one thir d of the City's total RHNA or 898 residential units are anticipated to be constructed on Opportunity Areas within the Specific Plan Area.

2. Goal LU-2 Land Use Diversity and Choices for Residents. The proposed Specific Plan would create new subzones which would regulate the development of land uses, the design of buildings, as well as the design of open spaces, with the goals of implementing focused growth, incentivize housing production, and re- purpose underutilized properties.

3. LU -2.1 Housing. The proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element Update that sets forth a plan to meet the City's RHNA allocation. Goal 5 of the proposed Specific Plan is intended to incentivize the production of more housing options, including affordable housing, senior housing, and workforce housing.
31 440
RES. NO. SVPC 10-2024

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg)

4. GOAL LU-3 City Structure and Form. Goal 1 of the proposed Specific Plan aims to create public spaces that people are connected to (placemaking) and improve business activity and pedestrian connect ivity. The Specific Plan would focus on promoting in-fill growth and development to maintain or improve access to the Arroyo Simi, hillside views, and allow for transit-supportive development.

5. LU-3.7 Building Relationship to Public Places . The Specific Plan would create new subzones and customized design standards to regulate the development of land uses within the plan areas. The new subzones and design standards incorporate the intent of several land use plans, policy, and regulations. T he standards address different elements of site and building design including , without limitation , lot coverage, building heights and setbacks, architectural character and massing, the quality of building materials and landscaping and parking requirements.

6. LU-3.8 Plans for Cohesive Development. The Specific Plan aims to use cohesive placemaking strategies to improve business activity and pedestrian connectivity. The proposed Specific Plan would create new subzones and customized design standards to regulate the development of land uses in the Specific Plan Area, including residential, commercial, industrial, and mixed-use land uses. The proposed Specific Plan would improve connectivity between parcels within the Specific Plan Area through implementation of pedestrian-oriented improvements.

7. Goal LU -5 Land Use Compatibility. The proposed Specific Plan would implement strategies to focus growth on infill development in underutilized commercial and industrial properties, which would improve cohesiveness between adjoining land uses.

8. LU-5.1 Development Compatibility. The proposed Specific Plan would create new subzones and customized design standards which address different elements of site and building design, including but not limited to, building heights and s etbacks, architectural character and massing, the quality of building materials, landscaping and parking requirements. The requirement for transitional heights for development adjacent to residential zoning would ensure compatibility with existing adjacent single-family urban forms.

9. LU-9.3 Housing Type Distribution. The proposed Specific Plan incentivizes the production of more housing options, including affordable housing, senior housing, and workforce housing.

10. Goal LU -10 Livable and Quality Neighborhoods. The proposed Specific Plan incentivizes the production of more housing options, including affordable housing, senior housing, and workforce housing.

11. LU-10.7 Complete Streets. Goal 7 of the proposed Specific Plan encourages a “complete street” approach for balancing street amenities for pedestrian, cyclist, and vehicle safety. The proposed Specific Plan aims to integrate development in proximity to the existing Metrolink rail transit station within the Tapo Street Area.

32 441
RES. NO. SVPC 10-2024

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg)

12. Goal LU-11 Neighborhood Urban Form. The proposed Specific Plan aims to foster infill development within parcels zoned for mixed use, commercial, industrial, and multi-family uses. The proposed Specific Plan aims to increase connectivity between City districts, reduce automobile dependence, and regulate the design of open spaces.

13. LU -12.2 Identity through Design. The proposed Specific Plan aims to use cohesive placemaking strategies to improve business activity and connectivity between land uses. The proposed Specific Plan aims to enhance the Specific Plan Area by fostering a unique sense of identity for the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor and Tapo Street Corridor. The goals of the proposed Specific Plan include improving connectivity between to and from districts and activity centers.

14. Goal LU-15 Multi-Family Neighborhoods. The proposed Specific Plan would provide opportunities to create mixed- use environments concentrated near centers of employment, retail, and other resident amenities. The new design standards of the proposed Specific Plan address different elements of site and building design, including but not limited to, building heights and setbacks, architectural character and massing, the quality of building materials, landscaping and parking requirements.

15. GOAL L U-17 Diverse Districts and Corridors. The proposed Specific Plan would create new subzones with new design standards for commercial districts. These standards are intended to incentivize the creation of mixed- use land uses which replace existing surface parking lots and big box retail uses.

16. GOAL LU -18 Well -Designed and Attractive Districts. The proposed Specific Plan would create new design standards for commercial and retail areas of the Specific Plan Area, addressing elements such as building heights and setbacks, architectural character and massing, the quality of building materials, landscaping and parking requirements.

17. Goal LU -19 Mixed- Use Villages. The proposed Specific Plan would create new subzones with new design standards for commercial districts. These standards are intended to incentivize the creation of mixed -use land uses which replace existing surface parking lots and big box retail uses.

18. Goal LU-23 Mixed-Use Corridor. The proposed Specific Plan would promote a Main Street in the Tapo Street Area through infill development which promotes connectivity and economic vitality. The proposed Specific Plan would create new subzones for mixed use, including the DMU – Downtown Mixed- Use zone in the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor and the TMU – Tapo Mixed-Use zone in the Tapo Street Corridor.

These subzones would incorporate placemaking strategies, improved pedestrian- oriented design standards, and vertical employment-focused mixed-use areas.

19. Goal LU-30 Transit-Oriented Mixed-Use Development. The proposed Specific Plan would capitalize on integrating infill development in proximity to the existing Metrolink rail transit station within the Tapo Street Specific Plan. The areas surrounding the Metrolink station are proposed to be zoned for the more intensive TMU zone. 33 442
RES. NO. SVPC 10-2024

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) D. The Planning Commission considered the effect of the proposed amendments to the Simi Valley Municipal Code (“SVMC”) on the housing needs of the region, balanced against the public service needs of its residents and against available fiscal and environmental resources, and has determined that the proposed project incentivizes the development of much-needed housing opportunities for the community. The project will not create a significant effect on fiscal resources as there is no physical development proposed and developments within the Specific Plan area will be required to pay any applicable impact fees. The Specific Plan area does not contain any value as habitat or significant environmental resources as discussed in the project’s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit 3).

E. The proposed amendments would not limit the number of housing units which may be constructed on an annual basis as the Specific Plan would incentivize the development of housing within the plan area.

SECTION 3: Environmental Assessment . Because of the facts set forth in Section 1, the Director completed an Initial Study for SP-S-2024-0002/GPA-2024-0002/Z-S-2024-0002.

Thereafter, the Director prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 and incorporated by reference. The MND (Exhibit 3) and MMRP (Exhibit D) are recommended for adoption by the City Council following which the Director is authorized to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15075 and any other applicable law.

SECTION 4: Recommendation. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt SP-S-2024-0002 for the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan (Exhibit A ); GPA-2024-0002 for the associated Land Use Map and Text Amendments (Exhibit B); Z-S-2024-0002 for the associated Zoning Map and SVMC Text Amendments (Exhibit C); and adoption of the project’s MND (Exhibit 3) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Exhibit D).

SECTION 5: Delegation of Authority. The Director is authorized to make clerical corrections; minor technical changes; and other non- substantive edits to the Specific Plan , in a form approved by the City Attorney, to ensure the Specific Plan is properly 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 34 443
RES. NO. SVPC 10-2024
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 4th day of September 2024.

Attest:

M.~ ~eg3'n fu
Recording Secretary
~ ~ ~
Allan C. Mann, Chairperson
Planning Commission
Approved as to Form:

ALGERIA R. FORD, City Attorney
By~ ~
Brian I. Hamblet ,
Senior Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to Content:
~ -- Sean Gibson
Deputy Environmental Services Director/ City
Planner
SPS2024000 2 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) 35 444
RES. NO. SVPC 10-2024
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley, California, at a regular meeting held on September 4, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Commissioner Tolson; Vice Chairperson Mayer; and
Chairperson Mann
None
None
Commissioners Kennedy and Rice
Recording Secretary
36 SPS20240002 GPA20240002 2S20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) 445
AGENDA ITEM NO.
#

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION

MOBILE HOME RENT MEDIATION BOARD

TREE ADVISORY BOARD
City Council Chamber September 4, 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 6:30 p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioner Tolson; Vice Chairperson Mayer; Chairperson Mann

Absent: Commissioners Kennedy and Rice

4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Vice Chairperson Mayer motioned for agenda item 11.A.1. be heard second and agenda item 11.A.2. be heard first.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – None

6. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT – None

7. PUBLIC STATEMENTS – None

8. CORRESPONDENCE
Deputy Environmental Services Di rector/City Planner Sean Gibson stated two supplemental staff reports were provided for agenda item 11.A.2. Copies were provided at the dais as well as in the lobby for the public.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR – None

10. CONTINUED BUSINESS – None

11. NEW BUSINESS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
446
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 2 September 4, 2024

2. SP-S-2024-0002, GPA-2024-0002 Z-S-2024-0002: To consider a recommendation to the City Council for the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan to create a community vision for developing areas of Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street, including new housing, commercial, and recreational opportunities; a General Plan Amendment to amend the land use and related general plan text; a Zone Change and amendment to the SVMC to remove the TAPO and LAAPO overlay districts; and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the subject application
Staff Contact: Naren Gunasekera
(805) 583-6863
There were no ex parte communications to report.

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

Environmental Services Director Stratis Perros, Principal Planner Naren Gunasekera, and Senior Associate Orlando Gonzales with Gruen Associates gave a presentation of the staff report.

Chairperson Mann opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. As no one in the audience wished to speak, Chairperson Mann closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.

Vice Chairperson Mayer thanked staff for all the work put into this project. Ms.

Mayer mentioned that the pr oject did not mention the historic aspect of Tapo Street. She would like to see projects in the future marking the historic significance of Tapo Street as Tapo Street made Simi Valley what it is today.

Commissioner Tolson stated fantastic work by all City staff and the consultants on the project and working to get the public’s input. Mr. Tolson appreciates the complete streets aspect of the Specific Plan as well as the objective design standards.

Chairperson Mann grew up in the City and remembers Tapo Street and the original Larwin Square on Los Angeles Avenue. Both areas need the assistance of this project.

VICE CHAIRPERSON MAYER MOVED THAT THE

PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI

VALLEY RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL

THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ENVISION
SIMI VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-S-2024-0002);
447
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 3 September 4, 2024

AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN (GPA-2024-0002) TO

CHANGE THE LAND USE MAP, AND THE MOBILITY

AND INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS TO
ACCOMMODATE THE SPECIFIC PLAN; AMEND

THE ZONE MAP AND SIMI VALLEY MUNICIPAL
CODE (Z-S-2024-0002) TO REMOVE THE TAPO
AND LAAPO OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS;

AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO IDENTIFY AREAS
LOCATED WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN; AND

ADOPT OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION (MND) AND MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR

THE PROJECT

Commissioner Tolson seconded the motion.

AYES: Commissioner Tolson; Vice Chairperson
Mayer; and Chairperson Mann

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: Commissioners Kennedy and Rice

There is no appeal period for SP-S-2024-0002, GPA-
2024-0002 and Z -S-2024-0002 as the item will go to
City Council.

1. PD-S-2024-0004, TT-2024-0002; Stow Villas, LLC : To consider a recommendation to the City Council for a Tentative Map and Planned Development Permit Modification to develop 16 condominium units; eliminate the previously approved affordable housing incentives; and determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; located at 5496 E Los Angeles Avenue

Staff Contact: Neal Morrissette
(805) 583-6867

There were no ex parte communications to report.

Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson gave a brief overview of the project.
448
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 4 September 4, 2024
Associate Planner Neal Morrissette gave a presentation of the staff report.

Commissioner Tolson asked for clarification regarding the stone veneer, the current status of the decorative planters, and the decorative concrete. Associate Planner Neal Morrissette will refer to the applicant regarding the current status of the project. Mr. Tolson inquired about the referenced change of building elevations and how that affects the currently constructed buildings. Mr. Morrissette stated the building elevations refer to the buildings keeping the current stucco.

Vice Chairperson Mayer asked the condition of the exis ting sidewalk. Associate Planner Mr. Morrissette stated the sidewalks are maintained but cannot speak to the condition overall.

Chairperson Mann asked about the removal of the decorative concrete and if it was a condition of the original approval. Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson stated the decorative concrete was a part of the original design and the applicant is requesting to remove the decorative concrete.

Chairperson Mann opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.

The Applicant, Nadet Fararji , gave a brief presentation about the project. He acknowledges the long process of the project that started in 2019. Mr. Fararji stated due to rising costs, they are requesting the stated changes within the staff report.

Commissioner Tolson asked the applicant regarding his visit to the site. Mr. Tolson inquired about the employees he saw working today and what they were doing.

The applicant, Nadet Fararji stated the employees were working on the electrical and various landscape plumbing.

Chairperson Mann asked the reason behind removing the decorative concrete and what the future plan is for landscaping. Mr. Fararji stated removing the decorative concrete is due to cost and the enhanced landscape includes trees as requested by the City.

Vice Chairperson Mayer asked what the stamped concrete is being replaced with to which the applicant stated regular, non-stamped concrete.

Commissioner Tolson stated during the site visit, he saw already poured sidewalks on the west side of the project and if those are being changed and when they were poured. Mr. Fararji stated the sidewalks were poured about 30 – 40 days ago as per the approved plans with no intentions of changing.

Rita Delmar spoke in opposition to the project. Ms. Delmar s tated her concerns with the project, the foundation-shaking due to construction, and the collapsing shared wall.
449
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 5 September 4, 2024
Siraj Aboulhson with the applicant team stated a shared wall did fall to which a civil engineer helped design and also repaired a wall on the south side. The main reasons behind the removal of the decorative concrete is cost as well as maintenance. Gutters are currently being installed, the applicant is working with a landscaper and installing irrigation, exterior lighting is being added, and working to obtain bids for the asphalt as well as fixing the road on Stow Street.

Commissioner Tolson asked what the approximate date of completion of the project is and what the potential selling price will be . Mr. Aboulhson stated their targeted date is the end of 2024. Mr. Fararji stated approximately $675,000.

Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson encourages all residents to follow up with City staff to ensure the safety of the property and potential tenants. Residents can reach out to Sean Gibson or Neal Morrissette. Mr.

Gibson clarified the timeline process for the project.

Chairperson Mann closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.

Vice Chairperson Mayer stated she has concerns regarding the project and the aesthetics of the project. Ms. Mayer recommended that the applicant find other ways to save money and not reduce the stone veneer or decorative concrete.

Commissioner Tolson stated he believes the decorative veneer should stay on the buildings, agrees with lowering the planter boxes to the ground, and has no opinion on the stamped concrete.

Chairperson Mann does not like removing the Affordable Housing Agreement but understands it will not affect our RHNA numbers. Mr. Mann would like to see a ribbon or border of the stamped concrete remain and does not mind removing the stone veneer since not all of the fronts of the buildings will be seen. Mr. Mann is ok with updating the interior sidewalks and patio areas.

Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean G ibson suggested eliminating the center -stamped concrete and one -third of the entryway -stamped concrete, eliminate the stamped concrete within the private patios, eliminate the stone veneer on the trash enclosure, and determine how much stone veneer to keep on the main buildings.

A discussion between Chairperson Mann, Vice Chairperson Mayer, and Commissioner Tolson occurred regarding preferences for the building. Remove center-stamped concrete and stamped concrete within private patios, agreeing with dropping the landscape containers to the ground, eliminating the stone veneer on the trash enclosure, and keeping the stone veneer on the buildings. Mr. Gibson clarified to have 10 feet of stamped concrete at the entryway. 450
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 6 September 4, 2024

COMMISSIONER TOLSON MOVED THAT THE

PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI

VALLEY RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL

APPROVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MODIFICATION (PD-S-2024-0004) AND TENTATIVE
MAP (TT -2024-0002) IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO REVISE

THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND SITE

IMPROVEMENTS, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO
SUBDIVIDE THE SITE INTO 16 TOWNHOME UNITS,

AND REQUEST TO ELIMINATE THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES;

AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Vice Chairperson Mayer seconded the motion.

AYES: Commissioner Tolson; Vice Chairperson
Mayer; and Chairperson Mann
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Kennedy and Rice
There is no appeal period for PD-S-2024-0004 and TT-
2024-0002 as the item will go to City Council.

B. OTHER – None

3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
A. STAFF
Deputy Environmental Services Dir ector/City Planner Sean Gibson stated the next tentative Planning Commission meeting is September 18, 2024.

B. PLANNING COMMISSION – None
C. MOBILE HOME RENT MEDIATION BOARD – None
D. TREE ADVISORY BOARD – None
451
Planning Commission Meeting
Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board
Tree Advisory Board Minutes – Page 7 September 4, 2024

4. ADJOURNMENT
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting is on September 18, 2024.

Minutes prepared by:

Megan Grai
452

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg)

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM

September 4, 2024

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Sean Gibson, Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner

SUBJECT: SP-S-2024-0002, GPA- 2024-0002, Z-S-2024-0002: TO CONSIDER A

RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY CO UNCIL FOR THE ENVISION SIMI

VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN TO CREAT E A COMMUNITY VISION FOR

DEVELOPING AREAS OF LOS ANGE LES AVENUE AND TAPO STREET,

INCLUDING NEW HOUSING, COMME RCIAL, AND RECREATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES; A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE LAND USE AND RELATED GENERAL PLAN TEXT; A ZONE CHANGE AND

AMENDMENT TO THE SVMC TO REMOVE THE TAPO AND LAAPO OVERLAY DISTRICTS; AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) AND MITIGATION MONITO RING PLAN FOR THE SUBJECT

APPLICATION

RECOMMENDATION

Recommend to the City Council approval of: Envi sion Simi Valley Specific Plan (SP-S-2024- 0002), to create a community vision for devel oping areas of Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street, including new housing, commercial, and recreational opportunities; a General Plan Amendment (GPA-2024-0002) to amend the Land Use Map and re lated General Plan text updates; a Zone Change and SVMC Update (Z-S-2024-0002) to amend affected zoning maps, and remove the TAPO and LAAPO Districts; and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the subject application.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

Project location

The Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan consists of two areas:

AGENDA ITEM NO.

11.A.2.
453

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) • The Los Angeles Avenue corridor from Sinaloa Road through Erringer Road • The Tapo St
reet Area from Alamo Street through Los Angeles Avenue
2 454

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) Why is the City considering the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan? Envision S
imi Valley is an e ffort to develop the Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street areas to be the “economic engine” of the City. These areas are currently zoned for primarily commercial and mixed-use and constitute approximately 1% of the City’s a creage. These areas and the City’s remaining commercial and industrial areas (totaling just over 7% of the City ) generate sales tax income that funds essential services such as street maintenance to the approximately 126,000 people who call Simi Valley home.

Envision S
imi Valley is the evolution of previous efforts , such as adoption of the Tapo Area (TAPO) and Los Angeles Avenue (LAAPO) Planning Overlay Districts with the 2012 General Plan update, to achieve pedestrian-oriented redevelopment of these two areas in the City. The Tapo Street area is virtually a historical town center for Simi Valley. The Los Angeles Avenue area was the City’s original highway, as evidenced by its current auto-centric uses. The corridor has changed considerably (Figure 1) and the aim is to help this area evolve toward new land uses.

Figure 1 – T
he Los Angeles Avenue corridor 1970 to 2010
In October 2
020, the City of Simi Valley (City) secured state grants from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD):
• Senate Bill 2 Planning Grants Program (SB 2)
• Local Early Action Planning (LEAP)
The goals for t
hese grants are to assist local governments with accelerating housing production, streamlining the approvals of housing, and increasing California's affordable housing stock. The City allocated these grants toward developing the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan (Specific Plan) for the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor and the Tapo Street Opportunity Areas (i.e. areas in the City that have been identified with the most potential for change in the future).

The scope o
f the project includes:
- Establishing zoning and policies to encourage new housing construction to meet State and City housing goals and needs;
3 455

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) - Creating objective design and development standards;
- Attracting new businesses and recreational opportunities; and - Increasing the quality of life in Simi Valley.

An extensive public outreach effort was carried out to collect comments and feedback on the Specific Plan. These included 11 events ranging from pop-ups at events like the Street Fair, to community workshops, neighborhood council presentations, and interviews with members of the business community. (Figure 2). A project website was maintained and comment boxes were placed at City Hall, the Library, and the Senior Center from September 2022 to February 2023.

Refer to Chapter 1.2 of the Specific Plan for details on the outreach efforts and information collected.

Figure 2 – Public outreach events

Each Specific Plan area’s vision statement was developed by utilizing adopted City plans and discussions with the City and community during the public outreach process:

The Los Angeles Avenue Corridor, envisioned as Simi Valley’s downtown, will become a pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use environment and will be established as a focal point of activity that integrates commercial, entertainment, residential, and open space uses.

Several existing shopping centers will be enhanced to include an engaging mix of uses with improved connectivity for multiple modes of transportation.

The Tapo Street Area will be enhanced to create a neighborhood identity authentic to its historic scale and character, and to serve as an intimate place of gathering. A pedestrian- oriented environment that integrates transit and bicycle connectivity improvements will promote and support diversity of high quality commercial and residential uses. 4 456

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) The Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan has the following ten goals:

1. Create a sense of place

2. Implement focused growth

3. Re-purpose underutilized properties

4. Foster transit use

5. Incentivize the production of housing

6. Improve connectivity to key destinations

7. Accommodate all transportation modes

8. Create indoor and outdoor recreation opportunities

9. Enhance the public realm and streetscapes

10. Adopt innovative parking strategies

Housing in Simi Valley

The City adopted an updated Housing Element, a component of the General Plan, in 2023 , in order to lay out a plan for providing housing and a suitable living environment for the City’s residents through 2029. The State mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) assigns the City a target of 2,793 units for the 2021–2029 Housing Element cycle. It is estimated that the City will grow from its current population of 124,000 to 136,700 by 2035. As detailed in the Housing Element, the growth rate of the limited h ousing stock in the City lags behind the County as a whole, with a growth rate of 2.3 % from 2010 through 2020. The overall vacancy rate in the City was approximately 3% from 2014 to 2018 and there has been a 10% increase in median home prices since 2020.

Detached and attached single-family dwellings and mobile homes comprise approximately 82% of Simi Valley’s housing stock. Future supply of this type of housing is severely limited due to the lack of developable vacant land. The Housing Element identified ‘Opportunity Areas’ to direct higher density residential development where there is existing infrastructure and where ‘in- fill’ re-development is more feasible. A number of these Opportunity Areas are located within the Envision Simi Specific Plan areas.

A lack of housing and economic risks

The lack of housing poses an economic risk to the City. The California Lutheran University Center for Economic Research and Forecasting identified a lack of housing to be a significant cause for Ventura County lagging behind the rest of the state and nation economically , 1 with
rising home prices and a shrinking population. People leaving Ventura County tend to be young and near the middle of the income distribution, according to the forecast. The population of people older than 60 is growing faster than the national average, while populations of people under 20 and between 20 and 39 are shrinking faster than average.

1 Ventura County Annual Economic Forecast 2024, CLU Center for Economic Research and Forecasting 5 457

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) The City of Simi Valley , together with the Natelson Dale Group (TNDG) , developed a comprehensive Economic Development Strategic Plan2 that was adopted by the City Council on March 4, 2024. The Plan identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that may affect Simi Valley’s economic competitiveness. While identified strengths included the high quality of life for families, a resident population with relatively high incomes , high rates of ownership, and an employment growth that is projected to be almost twice the rate of population growth, the Strategic Plan also identified a number of potential weaknesses including:

• Limited amenities for young professionals;
• Lower taxable sales per household compared to County and State averages; and • Very modest future growth due to cost -prohibitive housing for many working- age households.

These weaknesses translate into the threats of lim ited housing, a constrained capacity for new development, and retail competition from surrounding cities that could have a negative impact on Simi Valley’s future.

One of the major goals of the Specific Plan is to lay out a framework to facilitate the development of areas of Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street with new housing, commercial, and recreational opportunities . The redevelopment of these areas would help reduce the economic risk to the City and increase the benefits for the City’s citizens.

Increased housing supply and economic benefits

A fiscal impact analysis (Exhibit 1) was prepared on the potential benefits of the Specific Plan’s implementation. The study utilized developer interviews, the City’s financial reports, and City Staff input to estimate potential net development from the Specific Plan’s implementation (Table 1). It is anticipated that underutilized shopping centers will be redeveloped with housing , and new commercial opportunities will arise with the increase of population in these areas.

Table 1 – Net New Development in the Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street Specific Plan Areas over a 20-year timeframe

Development type No Specific Plan
Adoption
With Specific Plan
Adoption
Total Net
Development
Housing units 2,550 3,550 1,050
Retail/Restaurant
square footage
64,600 139,600 75,000
Office square footage 58,400 138,400 80,000

The study conservatively analyzed the fiscal impacts of the net new development on to the City’s General Fund, which is the primary source for funding municipal services as well as other impacts. Direct and indirect benefits identified include:

2 Simi Valley Economic Development Strategic Plan, City of Simi Valley (January 31, 2024). The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.
6 458

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) • A
n estimated net projected fiscal surplus of $3.73 million (inflation adjusted) to the City’s General Fund over 20 years;
• Additional property tax revenue from the increased value of properties in the Specific Plan area;
• A benefit to the regional economy (including the City, Ventura County, and the western portion of Los Angeles County) of almost $200 million as a result of the new population accommodated by the adoption of the Specific Plan;
• Social benefits including employees who work in the City such as teachers, fire fighters, etc. having an opportunity to find housing locally, reducing commutes and allowing a higher quality of life;
• More entertainment amenities for City residents; and
• More housing options for the children of long -standing Simi Valley fam ilies looking to remain in town.

Specific Plan subzones and uses
E
ach Specific Plan area was divided into subzones, each with specific goals in terms of the type of development to be incentivized. Complementary uses were then determined for each zone.

Los
Angeles Avenue Corridor
T
he goal for this area is the creation of a new “Downtown.” Two subzones are proposed (Figure 3), the Downtown Corridor (DC) Zone and the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) Zone. The higher - density and larger scale DMU area will be concentrated along the north side of Los Angeles Avenue and east side of First Street. This encompasses the existing Mountain Gate Plaza Shopping Center and Simi Valley Plaza with the potential for future large-scale redevelopment. 7 459

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) Figure 3 – Los Angeles Avenue Corridor

The parcels on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue and west of First Street will form the bulk of the DC Zone. These areas would allow smaller-scale, vertical mixed-use or horizontal mixed- use, depending on the size and characteristics of the parcels (Table 2). 8 460

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) Table 2 – Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Subzones

Subzones Purpose for Zone Residential Density
Range
Downtown
Mixed-
Use
(DMU)
• Create new housing opportunities and publicly
accessible open space.
• Allow phased developments that create a denser,
more walkable atmosphere with ‘active’ ground
floor uses in taller mixed- use buildings further
setback from Los Angeles Avenue.
• Utilize development standards that allow an active
front setback with plaza, outdoor seating, etc. ,
along Los Angeles Avenue.
• Permitted uses are largely service oriented such
as indoor entertainment and recreation facilities,
libraries, museums, art galleries, and health and
fitness facilities.
• Retail and service uses that may have adverse
impacts on neighboring residential and
commercial uses such as restaurants with
entertainment, supermarkets with extended hours
of operation, and out door recreation facilities are
conditional uses.

Base: 35 du/ac
Max: 55 du/ac

Downtown
Corridor
(DC)
• Prioritize residential uses, retail, grocery stores,
and restaurants along Los Angeles Avenue to
create a downtown feel and support surrounding
neighborhoods and the DMU zone.
• Creating more visually interesting buildings, closer
to the sidewalk along Los Angeles Avenue to
foster a more pleasant and attractive pedestrian
environment.
• Achieve more efficient shared parking
arrangements, increase walkability, and create an
identifiable sense of place.
• Create outdoor passive recreation opportunities in
new developments through the provision of
increased setbacks and amenities along the
Arroyo Simi.

Base: 35 du/ac
Max: 45 du/ac

Tapo Street Corridor

The goal for this Specific Plan area is the creation of a more walkable part of the City that has a neighborhood feel, with a pedestrian-oriented environment and bicycle connectivity.

Three subzones are proposed (Figure 4), the Tapo Mixed- Use (TMU) Zone, the Tapo Kadota Fig (TKF) Zone, and the Tapo Business Village (TBV) Zone. The higher-density and larger-scale 9 461

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) TMU area will mostly be concentrated along the north side of Los Angeles Avenue along Tapo Street to Cochran Street. This zone will also include t he Tapo-Alamo project which is under construction and areas surrounding the Metrolink Station.

T
he TMU Zone will include higher density development and vertical mixed use. The TKF Zone along Tapo Street from Cochran Street to Alamo Street will promote smaller-scale development densities compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

F
igure 4 – Tapo Street Corridor
T
he TBV Zone will form the southern edge of the Tapo Street corridor and transitions into the industrial areas south of Los Angeles Avenue. Development in this area will focus on employment-focused development with commercial and light industrial uses (Table 3). 10 462

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) Table 3 - Tapo Street Corridor Subzones
Subzones Purpose for Zone Density Range
Tapo Mixed -
Use
(TMU)
• Promote walkability to create a pedestrian
environment for this area.
• Encourage a "restaurant cluster".
• Promote infill horizontal mixed-use residential
and entertainment uses in existing surface
parking lots.
• Permitted uses are largely service oriented
such as indoor entertainment and recreation
facilities, libraries, museums, art galleries,
and health and fitness facilities.
• Retail and service uses that may have
adverse impacts on neighboring residential
and commercial uses such as restaurants with
entertainment, supe rmarkets with extended
hours of operation, and outdoor recreation
facilities are conditional uses.

Base: 35 du/ac
Max: 55 du/ac
Tapo Kadota
Fig (TKF)
• Encourage neighborhood-serving commercial
uses to support the TMU zone.
• Promote lower -density, horizontal mixed- use
to form a smooth transition into the more
intense mixed- use TMU subzones at either
end of the Zone.

Base: 35 du/ac
Max: 45 du/ac
Tapo Business
Village
(TBV)
• Promote street -facing commercial along Los
Angeles Avenue to increase employment -
focused development.
• Encourage connectivity to the neighboring
Tapo Street Mixed-Use area.
• Encourage the provision of flexible open
spaces.
• Focused on light industrial and commercial
uses to provide employment opportunities
and s upporting services to the residential
uses around it.

NA
S
ubzones and uses
I
n addition to the use details in Table 3, more detail on the permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses can be found in Section 2.4 of the Specific Plan. Certain uses that are deemed incompatible with the primary goals of the Specific Plan are prohibited. These prohibited uses typically involve large-scale storage of vehicles (for example, auto and vehicle sales, truck and freight terminals) or larger -scale industrial uses that may affect surrounding residential uses (for example, quarries, glass manufacturing, and fuel dealers). Note that as the Specific Areas are reserved for higher density, infill development and single- family dwellings are not a permitted use. 11 463

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) Similarly, auto-centric uses such as drive- through restaurants and automotive repair would become prohibited uses in some parts of the Specific Plan where they are currently conditional uses. Any existing uses would become legal-nonconforming uses.

Envision Simi Valley Residential Density

Base density and incentives

The highest “ base” residential density allowed within the City is within the Mixed- Use Overlay zone, which ranges from 20.1 to 35 units per acre. Currently this density can be exceeded by:

• A pplication of the Mixed- Use Overlay District Parcel Consolidation Program ( SVMC Section 9-44.105(H)) which allows a 10% increase;
• Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) which generally allows 35% to 50% increases with incentives, concessions, and waivers.

Density within the Specific Plan

The Specific Plan proposes an additional Community Benefit bonus to incentivize project components that would help achieve the walkability, active street frontage, and economic goals of the plan to allow a higher Tier 2 d ensity. The higher Tier 2 density varies between subzones as shown in Table 4.

Table 4 – Specific Plan tiers and densities

Downtown
Mixed-
Use
(DMU)
Downtown
Corridor
(DC)
Tapo
Mixed-
Use
(TMU)
Tapo
Business
Village
(TBV)
Tapo
Kadota-
Fig
(TKF)
Tier 1: Base
Residential
Density per
the General
Plan*
35 du/ac 35 du/ac 35 du/ac NA 35 du/ac
Tier 2: Max
Residential
Density with
Community
Benefit
Bonus
55 du/ac 45 du/ac 55 du/ac NA 45 du/ac
*State Density bonuses and the Parcel Consolidation bonus would be applied to this base density and the final density could exceed the Tier 2 values shown.

12 464

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) Community Benefit bonus

The Community Benefit bonuses are detailed in Chapter 3.11 of the Specific Plan. Some of the measures include:

• Extended setbacks such as the provision of outdoor dining areas along 50% of a building’s frontage in an extended setback area along Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street;
• Public realm improvements such as funding and maintenance of bus shelters and other pedestrian amenities in the public right-of-way; and
• Providing shared parking and vehicle access connections for adjoining lots to reduce parking needs for new businesses.

Objective Development Standards

A key component of the Envision Simi Specific Plan is objective development standards to guide development within the plan area. State housing bills adopted in recent years, including Senate Bill (SB) 35 and SB 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019), require that local agencies provide streamlined ministerial review and approval for housing projects. These laws limit local review of housing projects to verification of compliance with objective design and development standards.

Objective design standards are ones that “involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and a re uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal.”

Below is the difference between a subjective standard and an objective design standard:

Subjective Guidelines Objective Design Standard
Sloped roofs on entry porches, alcoves, or
dormer windows should generally be used
to express the sheltering character of
multifamily buildings.

A permanently covered entryway or
porch with a minimum depth of three feet
and width of four feet must be provided
for each residential unit on the ground
floor.

The intent of the Specific Plan’s objective design standards is to provide the City with tools to ensure that projects within the project areas are attractive, high quality, and functional while remaining in line with California law. These design standards will also provide developers with clear guidelines on how to design their projects, removing uncertainty from the development process.

The objective design standards prepared for the Specific Plan will form the foundation for the creation, in the near future, of further objective standards that will apply citywide to development projects. This will allow the City to maintain local control of the design of housing projects, as allowed by California Law.
13 465

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) Envision Simi Valley design standards
T
he proposed design standards for the Specific Plan area covers topics such as vertical and horizontal building articulation and neighborhood transitions, as well as design components to promote walkable surroundings and “ active” street frontages. The development and design standards discussed below are “general” ones for the entirety of the Specific Plan. Note that the different subzones have some specific standards unique to each. Please refer to Chapter 3.0 of the Specific Plan for more details.

U
rban form and building heights
T
he Specific Plan encourages an urban form that defines a downtown/city center look. With the larger lots in the DMU and TMU subzones of the plan, it is anticipated that these areas will be developed with three to four story, vertical mixed- used developments. The DC and TKF subzones have smaller lots and these areas are more suit able for horizontal mixed- use development.

N
eighborhood transitions
T
he Specific Plan has a transitional height requirement when a proposed development is adjacent to existing residential subzones . This is to ensure compatibility with existing single - family residential development surrounding the plan areas.

A
s shown in Figure 5, a 10-foot setback will be required for the building portion adjacent to the residential zone. The maximum building height at this setback line will be 30 -feet (the same maximum height in the City’s single-family residential subzones) and a 45-degree step-back will be required to the building’s maximum height. This, together with the required building articulation (see below) , will prevent m onolithic buildings directly adjacent to single- family residences.
14 466

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) Figure 5 – Neighborhood transitions required adjacent to single-family residential subzones A
rchitectural strategies
T
he design standards for the Specific Plan aim to ensure a “sense of place” and compatibility with the City’s existing architecture. Some of the architectural design standards and strategies are:
• Articulation of building facades is required;
• Step-backs at various building heights to reduce building massing; • Enhanced setbacks along the street;
• 360-degree design features; and
• Building corner design features.

The step -back requirements in the Specific Plan will ensure that vertical articulation of taller buildings will reduce building mass ing. Depending on the location within the Specific Plan, stories above the second and third stories will need to be stepped back by five to ten feet along 50% of building facades. Figure 6 shows an example.
15 467

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) Figure 6 – Step-backs required in the DMU/TMU Subzones

There are also horizontal articulation requirements in the Specific Plan. For every 75 feet of a building, 20% of the façade must be recessed by at least four feet. These can be one area or split between a number areas as shown in Figure 7. Providing deeper recesses for courtyards and outdoor dining is encouraged. This, together with the step-back requirements, will contribute to reducing building massing.

Figure 7 – Building articulation requirements

The use of enhanced setbacks is encouraged in the Specific Plan areas to encompass outdoor dining areas (Figure 6), seating areas, landscape, and artwork. The Community Benefit bonus 16 468

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) described previously is intended to incentivize larger setbacks to provide opportunities for outdoor dining and gathering areas.

Table 3.3 of the Specific Plan outlines a wide range of 360-degree design and building corner design features (Figure 8) to provide developers with flexibility in designing projects that meet the City’s architectural goals. These requirements, together with the articulation and step-back requirements, aim to provide architecturally diverse building frontages.

Figure 8 – Examples of design standards required in the Specific Plan

Site circulation, open space and active street frontages

The Specific Plan also encourages “opening” up large blocks for pedestrian connectivity, promoting private and common open space and active street frontages. The design standards 17 469

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) provide site-planning requirements for internal bicycle and pedestrian circulation to activate outdoor spaces such as a system of paseos or pathways connecting building entrances when a project has multiple buildings. These standards interact with others such as landscaping and setback standards to promote walkability and activate street fronts to promote economic activity.

Please refer to Chapter 3.0 of the Specific Plan for more details.

R
esidential private open space, common areas, and greenspaces (Figure 9 ) are important aspects of providing an amenable living and working environment. The Specific Plan requires the provision of both private and public open space for development projects. Projects will have to provide a minimum of 100 square feet of private open space per dwelling unit for projects with 20 or less units, to 70 square feet per unit for larger developments. Commercial and mixed-use projects will also have to provide publicly accessible, privately maintained open space. Please refer to Chapter 3.0 of the Specific Plan for more details.

F
igure 9 – Private open space and common area amenities
B
oth outdoor dining areas and active ground floor uses play a key role in creating a walkable environment and economic development of retail businesses and restaurants. T he Specific Plan’s subareas require active ground floor uses along primary and secondary street frontages, internal pedestrian walkways, and streets leading to primary streets. This is to ensure that there is a vibrant pedestrian environment. These uses can include restaurants, creative offices, food stores, and commercial services such as beauty salons.

G
round-floor residential uses are limited to when buildings front non-arterial and internal streets and driveways. The goal is to create interesting and active streets within the Specific Plan areas with an emphasis on subzones that have been identified as having the most potential for high density mixed- use, where pedestrians will congregate and become a customer base for restaurants and retail establishments in the mixed-use subzones. 18 470

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) Parking requirements and design

Parking requirements within the Specific Plan area are focused on guiding development towards a walkable and transit -oriented environment. Accordingly, the parking requirements for residential and commercial development are less restrictive than in other parts of the City.

Parking requirements for residential uses are laid out below in Table 6. As a comparison, one- bedroom units in multi -family dwellings outside of the Specific Plan area would require 1.5 spaces per unit and two-bedroom spaces would require two spaces per unit.

Table 6 – Residential parking requirements

Studios and seniors-only units 1 space per unit
One-bedroom units 1 space per unit
Two-bedroom units 1.5 spaces per unit
Units with three or more
bedrooms
2 spaces per unit
Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
Units
Per SVMC Section 9-44.215
A minimum of one guest parking space shall be provided for every five units, regardless of unit type. A minimum of one guest parking space shall be provided for complexes with fewer than five units. For SRO guest parking unit requirements see SVMC Section 9-44.215.
(1) Per the State Density Bonus Law, projects within 1/2 mile of transit may further reduce the requirements.

Parking requirements for commercial uses that are in line with the Specific Plan’s goals of active street frontages, such as sit-down and takeaway restaurants , have less parking required than outside the Specific Plan (Table 7). The former (outside of the Specific Plan) requires one space per 125 square feet of area and latter requires one space per 250 square feet.

19 471

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) Table 7 – Commercial parking requirements

Standards DMU DC TMU TKF TBV
Projects 15,000
square feet or less. One space per 500 square feet.

Refer to SVMC
Chapter 9-34 for
parking and
loading
standards.

Projects 15,001
square feet of more.

Standards per SVMC Section 9-

34.060 may be reduced by up to
15% if interconnectivity provided with
an adjacent parcel.

Eating and Drinking
Places with on-site
consumption of food
and beverages.

One space per 300 square feet.

Eating and Drinking
Places with take-out
and no on-site
consumption of food
and beverages.

One space per 400 square feet.

Coffee housing or
bakery as primary
use with no table
service.

One space per 400 square feet.

Outdoor dining.

No additional parking for up to 50%
of restaurant or food retailer gross
floor area. Thereafter, one space per
125 square feet.

The intent of these parking measures is to promote economic activity in these areas with mixed- use buildings where it is anticipated residents will frequent local businesses, reducing the need for parking and vehicle use, increasing transit use and walkability over the long term. The use of innovative parking solutions such as shared parking agreements (Figure 10) and shared vehicle access connections for adjoining lots to reduce parking needs for new businesses are encouraged with the Community Benefit bonuses.

Parking Location/Design

The Specific Plan design standards generally discourage parking in front yard setbacks. This is to help ensure that street frontages are reserved for active uses and pedestrian travel instead of uninviting parking lots. This includes surface parking lots and above- grade parking structures.

The latter would not be allowed to front arterial or collector streets without a 40- foot ‘buffer’ of retail, restaurants, offices or other similar pedestrian oriented uses in front of the structure with the exception of the vehicle entrance/exit.

20 472

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) Figure 10 - Parking locations and strategies (shared parking within a horizontal mixed-use project
T
he intent of the Specific Plan is that businesses and amenities benefit from exposure on street frontages thereby promoting economic activity and walkability within the plan area.

Mobility Plan
An e
fficient transportation network that moves people and goods throughout the planning areas and beyond while minimizing impacts to the environment and local neighborhoods is a key part of the Specific Plan. The Mobility Plan supports the land uses and objectives of the Specific Plan by laying out a number of goals for improving transit, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation, innovative parking measures, and ‘complete streets’ alternatives for the short and long term.

S
ome of the measures recommended by the Specific Plan are:
• T
ransit: Measures include adding bus shelters at all bus stops where feasible, new bus shelters, and adding pedestrian crossings near current transit stops to facilitate easier access.
• Pedestrian Access: Measures include utilizing extended setbacks (Figure 6) for wide pedestrian sidewalks, updating or adding high- visibility crosswalks, adding street amenities, street trees, and potentially parklets within the setback areas. • Bicycle Circulation: Measures include improving bike path signage, adding bike lanes, creating bike ‘hubs’ at transit points to bring together bicycle share stations, bicycle parking and bike repair tools; and improving intersections to increase bike safety. 21 473

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) Complete streets
T
he Specific Plan includes recommendations for streetscape improvements focused on complete streets. That is an approach where streets are planned, designed, operated , and maintained to enable safe, convenient, and comfortable travel for users of all ages and abilities over a range of modes of transportation (Figure 11 ). These recommendations are aimed at making the streets within the Specific Plan as bike and pedestrian- friendly as possible given existing constraints. As streetscape improvements are heavily dependent on funds availability for the City, the recommendations include a “short-term” option that is easier and less expensive to implement, and a longer-term option that may become feasible as the areas within the Specific Plan are developed.

F
igure 11 – Complete streets approaches to transport
Los
Angeles Avenue recommendations
F
igure 12 shows the short-term and long-term alternatives for a complete streets approach to Los Angeles Avenue. The short -term, ‘simpler’ option proposes a striped buffer between bike lanes on either side of the street. The longer -term option recommends a cycle track/multi -use pathway with parking, where space permits, on one side of the street. 22 474

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) Figure 12 – Short-term and long-term alternatives for Los Angeles Avenue

Tapo Street recommendations

Figure 13 shows the short-term and long-term alternatives for a complete streets approach to Los Angeles Avenue. The short-term, “simpler” option proposes parallel parking and bike lanes on either side of the street. The longer -term option is similar but with separated bike lanes with a buffer to increase bike safety.
23 475

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) Figure 13 – Short-term and long-term alternatives for Los Angeles Avenue

The complete streets scenarios in the Specific Plan would require significant public funding and removal of travel lanes to accommodate protected bike paths and/or parking. It is likely that even the “short-term” scenarios will take years to implement, dependent upon available funding, and transit demand growth to ensure that Levels of Service will not be impacted significantly on surrounding streets.

24 476

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) Implementation
A
dopting the Specific Plan will not, by itself, jump-start economic activity and the development of the areas into a walkable/downtown district. Instead, the Specific Plan proposes a “ vision” of how these areas should look through the subzones , the development standards, and mobility scenarios. Several implementation measures such as allowing for streamlined project approvals, obtaining funding for changes in the public right -of-way, etc., are required to realize this vision and to ensure developers can redevelop underutilized sites.

T
hese implementation measures range from short-term (within 5 years), to long-term measures (between 5 and 20 years). They also range from specific improvement projects, such as increasing shaded trees in the right-of-way, to strategies such as creating a parking strategy for the Specific Plan areas. A full description of the measures can be found in Chapter 6 of the Specific Plan.

General Plan Amendments/Zone Change/ Zone Text Updates
T
he proposed General Plan amendments are detailed in Exhibit B and summarized below:
- U
pdates to the General Plan Land Use Map to ensure consistency with the areas designated for Mixed Use within the Specific Plan;
- Update the maximum density allowed in Mixed- Use areas in Chapter 3: Community Development to take into account the Community Benefit Bonus in the Specific Plan; - Update the allowable Levels of Service (LOS) within commercial areas in Chapter 5:

Mobility & Infrastructure to take into account potential reductions in LOS resulting from repurposing lanes; and
- Minor text “clean ups” to ensure consistency between the Specific Plan and the General Plan.

T
he proposed Zone map and text amendments are as follows:
- U
pdates to the Zoning Map to include the Specific Plan overlay for the relevant properties; - Removal of the LAAPO and TAPO overlay districts.

NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL
T
he Specific Plan was presented to the City’s Neighborhood Councils . The recommendations and associated comments and concerns for each Neighborhood Council is listed below.

Nei
ghborhood Council #1 heard the project on August 8, 2024 and recommended approval with the below recommendations, by a vote of 9 Ayes; 1 No; 2 Abstentions. The audience vote was 4 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions.
• Keep two traffic lanes on Tapo Street;
• Relocate the City’s transit hub to a more dense area of the City; • Consider a parking structure in the area;
• Consider a trolley system for the Specific Plan area; and 25 477

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) • C onsider a trolley system for the Specific Plan area ; and • Add north/south bike lanes.

Nei
ghborhood Council #2 heard the project on August 13, 2024 and recommended approval by a vote of 6 Ayes; 2 Noes; 0 Abstentions. The audience vote was 2 Ayes; 1 No; 0 Abstentions.

Nei
ghborhood Council #3 heard the project on July 11, 2024 and recommended denial due to the below concerns, by a vote of 10 Ayes; 2 Noes; 0 Abstentions. The audience vote was 2 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions.
• Concerns with building heights over three stories;
• The Specific Plan’s requirements for Conditional Use Permits (CUP) for drinking places (bars) should be further relaxed to permitted uses without a CUP; and • Concerns with increased traffic congestion due to losing a lane on Los Angeles Avenue.

Nei
ghborhood Council #1 heard the project on July 16, 2024 and recommended approval with the below recommendations and concerns by a vote of 9 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions . The audience vote was 0 Ayes; 0 Noes; 3 Abstentions.
• Implement a 15-foot setback adjacent to residential areas instead of 10-feet; • Develop hillsides instead of only valley floor;
• Develop incentives to promote charging stations;
• Not extending the Specific Plan west of First Street; • Ongoing assessment of the Mobility Chapter measures and impacts, specifically with regards to parking and traffic;
• Concerns about parking issues for commercial;
• Concerns regarding increased traffic by eliminating lanes for bike lanes; and • Concerns regarding bike/car conflict.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS
A
n Initial Study was prepared for the Specific Plan in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063. The Initial Study concluded that the project could have a potentially significant impact on Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The project will incorporate mitigation measures that would reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts to an insignificant level.

T
herefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070 and 15072, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project and circulated for a 30- day public review period from August 1, 2024 through August 30, 2024 (Exhibit 3).

B
ased on the proposed project and information provided, including the Initial Study prepared for Specific Plan, there is no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Consequently, the City prepared the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the documents reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

Prepared by: Naren Gunasekera, Principal Planner
26 478

SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report (mg) INDEX Page

Planning Commission Procedure .................................................................................. 28 Resolution ...................................................................................................................... 30 Exhibit A: Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan (SP-S-2024-0002)……………………37 Exhibit B: General Plan Land Use Map and Text Changes (GPA-2024-0002)…..202 Exhibit C: Zoning Map and Development Code Text Changes (Z-S-2024-0002)..219 Exhibit D: Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMRP) ………………………….………243 Exhibit E: General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Zoning Map and Development Code Text Change Findings………………………………………………..248
Exhibit 1: Simi Valley, Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street Specific Plan Areas – Fiscal Benefits Memo
Exhibit 2: Neighborhood Council #1, #2, #3 & #4 Summaries Exhibit 3: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study

27 479

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM

SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA ITEM NO.

11.A.2.

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

September 4, 2024
Planning Commission
Sean Gibsonl2 eputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner SP,.S-2024-0002, GPA~2024-0002, Z-S-2024-0002: SUPPLEMENT TO

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM TO CONSIDER A

RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE ENVISION SIMI

VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN TO CREATE A COMMUNITY VISION FOR

DEVELOPING AREAS OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE AND TAPO STREET,

INCLUDING NEW HOUSING, COMMERCIAL, AND RECREATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES; A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE
LAND USE AND RELATED GENERAL PLAN TEXT; A ZONE CHANGE

AND AMENDMENT TO THE SVMC TO REMOVE THE TAPO AND LAAPO
OVERLAY DISTRICTS; AND ADOPTING THE MITIGf\TED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION (MND) AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE SUBJECT APPLICATION.

The following comment letters were received in response to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the project. Staff has responded to the · relevant items and the IS/MND has been modified as noted below.

1. County of Ventura, Environmental Health Division (Exhibit 1 ): Advising that projects in the Specific Plan area would be required to obtain relevant approval from Environmental Health for any proposed public/community swimming pools, food facilities, handling, storage or transport of hazardous waste, and stormwater systems must be designed to prevent the harborage and breeding of disease vectors such as mosquitoes.

Staff Response:

Projects proposed within the Specific Plan areas will have to comply with all applicable County regulations as part of their entitlement and permitting process.

No modifications to the MND are required.

2. Ventura County Fire Department (Exhibit 2): Recommending two corrections to the MND sections addressing service times and the number of stations serving Simi Valley.

Staff Response:

The relevant MND pages have been corrected as suggested (Exhibit 6).

S-1
SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 1 (mg) 480

3. Ventura County Watershed Protection (Exhibit 3): Confirming that the project would have less than significant environmental impacts on areas under the jurisdiction of the Ventura County Public Works Agency - Watershed Protection.

Staff Response:

None required.

4. State of California Transportation Agency (Exhibit 4): Advising that the Specific Plan would b e consistent with applicable p lans addressing circulation; recommending Alternative 2 for Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street to enhance pedestrian and cyclist safety and comfort; encouraging the City to apply for a Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant to support bikeway planning and design; Supporting the Specific Plan's mobility goals and policies with regard to Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) reductions, etc.; concurring that the Specific Plan is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) with regard to VMT impacts being less than significant.

Staff Response:

None required.

5. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (Exhibit 5): Recommending that a mitigation measure be incorporated into the MND to monitor and limit the number of building permits issued to ensure that the population growth resulting from the Specific Plan would not exceed the Southern California Association o f Governments (SCAG) and the Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan's (AQMP) population growth forecasts for 2035 and 2045.

Staff Response:

A mitigation measure to monitor population growth and limit building permits is not necessary since the City already tracks and monitors growth in the City. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) already requires the City to prepare an annual progress report on its status and progress in implementing its housing element. As discussed in the IS/MND, the City plans to track growth within the Specific Plan Area to ensure regional population growth forecasts are not exceeded. It should a lso be noted that t he economic development report prepared as part of the Specific Plan concluded that is it very unlikely that the full buildout of the Specific Plan Area will occur in the next 20-30 years.

INDEX
Exhibit 1 - County of Ventura, Environmental Health Division Letter dated August 26, 2024 Exhibit 2 - Ventura County Fire Department Letter dated August 28, 2024 S-2
SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 1 (mg) 481
Exhibit S - Ventura County Watershed Protection Letter dated August 23, 2024 Exhibit 4 - State of California Transportation Agency Letter dated August 30, 2024 Exhibit 5 - Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Letter dated August 28, 2024 Exhibit 6 - Amended Pages 3-54 of IS/MND
S-3
SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 1 (mg) 482
c0uNrY fvENruRA

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
CHARTES R. GENKEL
Environmental Health Director
August 26,2024
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, California 93063
RMA REF#24-020, Review of Mitigated Negative Declaration - Envision Simi Valley
Ventura County Environmental Health Division (Division) staff reviewed information submitted for the subject project.

The Division provides the following comments.

1. The proposed project included mixed use residential developments. Swimming Pools are noted as possible residential common recreation areas. The builder/ applicant shall submit plans forthe public swimming poolto this Division and obtain plan approval prior to beginning any construction of the community swimming pool and auxiliary structures. A permit to operate the swimming pool is also required prior to use inauguration.

Contact the Ventura County Environmental Health Division, Community Services Section for information on swimming pool plan review requirements. htt p s ://v crm a. org/e n he cre ati o n a I -h e a lth' p u b I i c' poo I s-and-spas

2. Projects includes the potential construction of food facilities. Food facilities are subject to plan review and permitting by this Division. The applicanU food facility operator must submit plans to the Ventura County Environmental Health Division, Community Services Section and obtain plan approval prior to beginning any construction of any food facility. A Permit to Operate from this Division is required prior to beginning any retail food
operations.
sc N\ G:\Admin\TECH SERVTCES\F|NALED Letters\Land Use\sR0022289 ODR RMA REF 24-O2O Envision Simi Valley.docx Page 1 Of 2 HALL OF ADMINISTRATION #1730
805-654-281 3 . FAX 805-654-2480 . 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 . vcrma.org EXHIBIT 1
483
For more information regarding food facility permitting and plan check review, please visit the website at:
h tt p s : //vcrm a. org/e n /co n s u me r-food - prote cti o n

3. Final project may include commercial business tenants that handle, store, or transport hazardous materials, or they may generate hazardous waste.

Hazardous materials and/or hazardous waste at or above the reportable threshold must be reported to this Division's Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Contact the CUPA for reporting and/or permitting requirements. htt p s : //vcrm a. org/e n/cu pa

4. New storms drain and stormwater systems may be designed and proposed in various phases of the proposed project. The construction and use of stormwater drainage outlets have the potential for proliferation of vectors of disease, including mosquitoes. Stormwater structures should be designed and maintained to prevent the harborage and breeding of vectors such as mosquitoes, as well as to minimize the potential health impacts created by these vectors. lf you have any questions, please contact me at (805) 654-2830 or [email protected].
ry
Roxy Cabral, R.E.H.S.

Land Use Section
Environmental Health Division
SC N:\G:\Admin\TECH SERVICES\FINALED Letters\Land Use\SR0022289 ODR RMA REF 24-O2O Envision Simi Valley.docx Page 2 of 2 484
EXHIBIT 2
485
486
487

WATERSHED PROTECTION

WATERSHED PLANNING AND PERMITS DIVISION
800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California 93009

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 23, 2024
TO: Philip Hess, Case Planner
County of Ventura
FROM: Yunsheng Su, PWA-WP Case Reviewer
SUBJECT: RMA 24-020 (SP-S-2024-0002) 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA, 93063
APN:579006131
CEQA Review Comments and Conditions
Pursuant to your request dated 8/12/2024, this office has reviewed the submitted materials and provides the following comments.

PROJECT LOCATION:
2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA, 93063
Location Map:

EXHIBIT 3
488
RMA 24-020 (SP-S-2024-0002) 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA, 93063 August 23, 2024

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Approval of the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan, to create a community vision for the development of areas of Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street, including the provision of new housing, commercial, and recreational opportunities; a General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use and related General Plan text; A Zone Change to amend affected zoning maps, and Development Code Amendment to remove the TAPO and LAAPO Overlay Districts; and the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the subject application Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street areas
APPLICATION COMPLETENESS:

Complete - from our area of concern.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:

Item
31a. Flood Co ntrol Facilities/Watercourses – Ventura Co unty Public Works Agency, Watershed Protection is deemed to be Less Than Significant.

The proposed project is situated about 99 feet from the Arroyo Simi, which is a WP jurisdictional redline channel. No new or modified direct stormwater drainage connections to this WP channel, activities within WP’s easement, or activities over, under, or within the redline channel appear to be proposed or indicated on the applicant’s submitted materials.

This proposed project would result in an increase of impervious area within the subject property. It is understood that impacts from the proposed increase in impervious area and stormwater drainage design within the project site will be required to be mitigated to less than significant under the conditions imposed by City of Simi Valley. The mitigation requires that runoff from the proposed project site be released at no greater than the existing flow rate and in such manner as to not cause an adverse impact downstream in peak discharge, velocity, or duration.

WP staff determines that the proposed project design with the conditions mentioned above mitigates the direct and indirect project-specific and cumulative impacts to flood control facilities and watercourses. Therefore, the environmental impact is less than significant (LS) on redline channels under the jurisdiction of the Ventura County Public Works Agency - Watershed Protection.

WATERSHED PROTECTION COMMENTS:

None.

WATERSHED PROTECTION CONDITIONS:

None.
489
RMA 24-020 (SP-S-2024-0002) 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA, 93063 August 23, 2024

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by email at [email protected] or by phone at 805-654-2005.

END OF TEXT.
490
“P
rovide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” ST
ATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALI FORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7
100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE (213) 266-3562
FAX (213) 897-1337
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life
August 30, 2024
N
aren Gunasekera
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
RE: Envision Simi Valley: MND
GTS # 07-VEN-2024-00609
SCH # 2024070987
Vic. VEN 118 23.822, 27.322
Dear Naren Gunasekera:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above- referenced project. The proposed Specific Plan would regulate the future development of the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor (from Sinaloa Road through Erringer Road) and the Tapo Street Area (from Alamo Street through Los Angeles Avenue, extending towards the Metrolink Station) in the City of Simi Valley. The proposed Specific Plan would replace the current zoning designations with customize zones and design standards to regulate development within the Specific Plan Area. No specific development projects are proposed as part of the Specific Plan at this time; however, all future development plans or agreements, tract or parcel maps, or any land use development approval requiring ministerial or discretionary actions within the Specific Plan Area would be required to be consistent with the proposed Specific Plan.

The City of Simi Valley is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

After reviewing the project’s documents, Caltrans has the following comments:

Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Access
It is determined the Project would not result in inconsistencies with applicable plans addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian in the Project vicinity. As noted herein, it is determined that the Project may intensify the use of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in the Project vicinity, however, such use is not expected to result in a deficient condition caused by the Project.

Caltrans recommends Alternative 2 for Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street to enhance pedestrian and cyclist safety and comfort. The project should also include amenities like bicycle racks, bus stop shelters, and benches. During construction, it is imperative to detour bicyclists safely through the project area with robust signage and direction. The Lead Agency is encouraged to apply for a Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant to support bikeway planning and design.

EXHIBIT 4
491
Naren Gunasekera
August 30, 2024

“
Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” Caltrans is in support of the Project’s mobility goals and policies, which align with state priorities for transportation, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction, and/or betterment of the environment and human health.

VMT
The Project is subject to the following City of Simi Valley guidelines where a project will be considered to have an impact if it generates VMT per capita and/or per employee in excess of five percent less than the background VMT for the City of Simi Valley. The existing plus project VMT per service population for the Specific Plan Area is forecast to be 14.5, while the existing citywide VMT per service population is currently 15.5. As such, five percent below existing citywide VMT per service population is 14.7. Therefore, the existing plus project Specific Plan area VMT per service population (14.5) is not forecast to exceed the City’s CEQA threshold.

Mitigation Measures: TDM
The following mitigation measure has been identified to reduce the significant and unavoidable impact of the Project:

Goal 7: Accommodate All Transportation Modes : Use complete street approaches for “right-sizing” streets that improve pedestrian safety and balance the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles. Connect to neighboring active transportation assets such as Arroyo Simi and the Simi Valley transit station.
• Introduce standards or programs that result in long-term reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
• Evaluate enhanced bike and pedestrian infrastructure along Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street for opportunities to connect to the study areas and adjacent destinations such as the Simi Valley transit station and the Arroyo Simi, including key first/last mile connections to from the adjacent neighborhoods. • Evaluate impacts of repurposing travel lanes for bike lanes, bus lanes, and/or on- street parking as it relates to truck traffic, local vehicular traffic, and regional vehicular traffic. d. Integrate the use of emerging technologies and micro mobility options which may include on-demand scooters and e-bikes.

Therefore, Caltrans concurs that the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and impacts related to VMT would be less than significant.

Others
For the projects that are along SR-118 and near SR-118, please ensure that the existing signal and transportation operations at all major intersections can accommodate any travel pattern changes the Project will cause. For any traffic signals and curb ram ps requiring upgrades, the Project would be responsible for payment of all applicable fees 492
Naren Gunasekera
August 30, 2024

“
Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” and costs, and Caltrans is not responsible for any fair -share contribution to the improvements.

Due to the project’s proximity to SR 118, any improvement on Tapo Street within State Right-of-way will need an Encroachment Permit. Caltrans recommends that the Project limit construction traffic to off- peak periods to minimize the potential impact on Sta te facilities. If construction traffic is expected to cause issues on any State facilities, please submit a construction traffic control plan detailing these issues for Caltrans’ review.

I
f y
ou have any questions, please contact Jaden Oloresisimo, the project coordinator, at [email protected] and refer to GTS # 07-VEN-2024-00609.

S
incerely,
A
nthony Higgins
Acting LDR/CEQA Branch Chief
c
c: State Clearinghouse
493

VENTURA COUNTY

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
Memorandum
TO: Naren Gunasekera, City of Simi Valley DATE: August 28, 2024 FROM: Nicole Collazo, Air Quality Specialist, VCAPCD Planning Division SUBJECT: Request to Review the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Envision Project Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff have reviewed the subject Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND) for the project referenced above, which analyzed the environmental impacts of a Specific Plan to create a community vision for the development of areas of Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street, including the provision of new housing, commercial, and recreational opportunities. The Lead Agency is the City of Simi Valley (City).

APCD has the following comments regarding the project’s DMND.

Item 1- Page 3-6, AQMP Consistency. The section on whether the project conflicts or obstructs with the applicable air plan should be changed to a L ess than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated determination. The analysis states that addition of the proposed project would exceed both the Southern California Association of Gover nments (SCAG) and the Ventu ra County Air Quality Management Plan’s (AQMP) population growth forecasts for 2035 and 2045. It then goes on to say that the City wil l ensure the building allocations do not exceed the population growth forecasts. T his is considered a mitigation measure and should thus be developed in one an d included in the DMND. You may look at the City of Ojai’s building permit maximum (Page 28 of 31) allowed program for an example of how this can be developed. The mitigation measure should state how this allowance will be tracked, implemented, and enforced. Furthermore, the determination should be changed to Less tha n Significant With Mitigation Incorporated since it did exceed the population forecasts and according to the Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (AQAG), projects not consistent with the AQMP are considered to have a cumulative adverse air quality impact and it would contribute to the air plan not being able to meet its goal of attaining the federal ozone standard by the year it stated (2026 for the 2022 AQMP). Please correct these 2 items to ensure the project is consistent with not only SCAG, the AQMP, but the City ’s Policy NR-9.1 found below.

Policy NR-9.1 Regional Cooperation. Ensure that air quality standards are consistent with the Countywide recommendations of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, which are intended to reduce air quality impacts. In addition, cooperate with SCAG’s efforts to implement provisions of the region's AQMP.

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

EXHIBIT 5
494
Los Angeles Avenue Corridor & Tapo Street Area Specific Plan 3.0 Initial Study Checklist & Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
taha 2021-062 3-54
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-
Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?    
ii) Police protection?    
iii) Schools?    
iv) Parks?    
v) Other public facilities?    
a.i) Less-Than-Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the project would result in additional fire services or would negatively affect existing fire services . The Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD) provides fire prevention, fire suppression, and emergency services for Ventura County using five battalions comprising 31 fire stations. Battalion 4 serves the City of Simi Valley. In 2022, the VCFD responded to over 52,000 calls for service, for a mix of incidents from medical to fire.51 The VCFD does not currently have a set standard or formula for determining acceptable levels of service ; however, VCFD strives to achieve a response time of five to seven minutes for emergency calls, and nine to 12 minutes for non-emergency calls throughout the County of Ventura.

The proposed Specific Plan would allow for a projected total buildout of 9,592 additional housing units and increase the population within the City by approximately 27,529 persons.

This population increase would result in additional demand for fire protection services which could result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. However, of the need for fire stations is not directly associated with population increases. Rather, the need is identified more as a function of the geographic distribution of structures, vehicular incidents, and vacant land with combustible vegetation. The VCFD’s service goals are based on accepted service levels, such as response times, incident loads, resident and transient population, and square footage thresholds. The City is currently served by five six fire stations, and two new stations are currently under construction (whereby one of the new stations is replacing an existing station). Based on current service goals and levels of service, the VCFD is operating at acceptable levels of fire protection service.

The increase in population growth was envisioned and assessed in the FEIR prepared for the General Plan which evaluated the impacts of total population of 178,236 persons at build-out of the General Plan. 52 Residential growth would also continue to be managed through implementation of the City’s Managed Growth Plan. SVMC Section 9 -62.040 requires that VCFD verify that a dequate fire protection facilities are planned for any proposed subdivision. Policy S-7.13 of the General Plan also requires new developments to pay a pro -rata share for increased fire protection as necessitated by their construction, 51Ventura County Fire Department, Ventura County Fire Department District Snapshot, 2022, https://vcfd.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/AnnualReport2022.pdf, accessed July 24, 2023. 52City of Simi Valley, General Plan Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2009121004, June 2012.

EXHIBIT 6
495

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
SECOND

SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA ITEM NO.

11.A.2.

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

September 4, 2024
Planning Commission
Sean Gibso~ eputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner SP-S-2024-0002, GPA-2024-0002, Z-S-2024-0002: SECOND

SUPPLEMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM TO

CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE

ENVISION SIMI VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN TO CREATE A COMMUNITY

VISION FOR DEVELOPING AREAS OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE AND

TAPO STREET, INCLUDING NEW HOUSING, COMMERCIAL, AND
RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES; A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
TO AMEND THE LAND USE AND RELATED GENERAL PLAN TEXT; A

ZONE CHANGE AND AMENDMENT TO THE SVMC TO REMOVE THE
TAPO AND LAAPO OVERLAY DISTRICTS; AND ADOPTING THE

MITIGATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) AND MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN FOR THE SUBJECT APPLICATION.

The Planning Division has received the following correspondence:

1. Correspondence from Teresa Jordan, dated July 30, 2024

2. Correspondence from Teresa Jordan, dated August 26, 2024, opposing the project

3. Correspondence from Teresa Jordan, dated August 30, 2024

4. Correspondence from Teresa Jordan, dated September 3, 2024

5. Correspondence from Andrew Graves, dated September 4, 2024, supporting the project

6. Correspondence from Jackson Piper, dated September 4, 2024, supporting the project
Regarding the clarifications relevant to the Specific Plan mentioned in the correspondence:
- The 'merged Tapo Canyon/West End Community Development Project' referenced was made defunct by the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies by the state on February 1, 2012;
Staff is unclear what 'property taxing entities' are in reference to; The LAAPO and TAPO Districts were adopted via Ordinance No. 1207, effective March 28, 2013;
Prior Planning documents such Vision 2020 SEEDS for the Future can be obtained by submitting Public Records Act requests to the City;
The public notification process for the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan has been carried out as required by State Law;
Senate Bill (SB) 628, Assembly Bill 733 (2017), Senate Bill 1145 (2018), Assembly Bill 116 (2019) govern Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs); S-1
SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 2 (mg) 496
- EIFDs are one of the potential funding tools for improvements associated with the Specific Plan and would need to be developed by Staff and approved by the City Council prior to implementation. Potential impacts would need to be reviewed at that stage. Adoption of the Specific Plan would not implement any EIFDs; - The Specific Plan can be amended as required in compliance with Simi Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 9-56.070 - Implementation and Amendments; - Fruitless Chinese Pistache is a fruitless male cultivar of the Chinese pistache tree that doesn't produce fruit;
- A homestead declarations is a. legal document that protects a person's primary residence from creditors and forced sale. 'Grandfathered' property rights refers to the continuation of legal non-conforming land uses, structures and parcels pursuant to Chapter 9-72 of the SVMC. There is no relation between the two; - The Simi Valley Transportation Model is a computerized travel demand model that utilizes a 2019 base year scenario and a 2030 future year scenario; - The Metrolink plan referenced is Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) Strategic Business Plan which was adopted on January 22, 2021.

Attachments:

Exhibit 1 - Correspondence from Teresa Jordan, dated July 30, 2024 Exhibit 2 - Correspondence from Teresa Jordan, dated August 26, 2024 Exhibit 3 - Correspondence from Teresa Jordan, dated August 30, 2024 Exhibit 4 - Correspondence from Teresa Jordan, dated September 3, 2024 Exhibit 5 - Correspondence from Andrew Graves, dated September 4, 2024 Exhibit 6 - Correspondence from Jackson Piper, dated September 4, 2024 S-2
SPS20240002 GPA20240002 ZS20240002 PC Staff Report Supplemental 2 (mg) 497
Simi Valley, CA
August 30, 2024
Simi Valley Planning Commission
Simi Valley City Hall
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Re: Agenda Item No. 11.A.2(SP-S-2024-0002, GPA-2024-0002, Z-S-2024-0002: Recommendation to the City Council for
the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan to create a
community vision for developing areas of Los Angeles
and Tapo Street, including new housing, commercial,
and recreational opportunites...and amendment to the
SVMC to remove the TAPO and LAAPO overlay districts:
and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Monitoring Plan for the subject application).

Dear Members of the Commission:

Because my August 26, 2024 letter for the public hearing on “Envision Simi Valley Comments”(per City website notice in the News List section instructions), and the 3 maps that were attached are not part of the staff report, and since my July 30, 2024 letter to Naren Gunasekera is not included in the Correspondence Agenda section, nor is there a
Supplemental under Agenda Item No. 11.A.2, I am submitting this letter, and those evidentiary materials.

Members of the Commission, I made every effort to submit my comments in a timely manner due
to the Labor Day weekend.

Members of the Planning Commission, I really appreciate that City staff included my July 11, 2024 letter to the Neighborhood Council #3 Executive Board in Exhibit 2 after the Neighborhood Councils’ Development Review Summary.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Teresa Jordan
EXHIBIT 1
498
Simi Valley, CA
August 26, 2024
Simi Valley Planning Commission
Simi Valley City Hall
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Re: Envision Simi Valley Comments.

Dear Members of the Planning Commission:

I am still opposed to the Draft Envision Simi Valley
Specific Plan for the reasons given in my July 11, 2024 Neighborhood Council #3 Executive Board letter, and for the inquiries made in my July 30, 2024 letter to Naren
Gunasekera, and the following additional comments.
#1 - It is stated on Page 3 of Neighborhood Council
#3’s July 11, 2024 Draft Minutes for Agenda Item
No. 7a(Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan), under
“City staff responded...as follows:...Currently
applications are grandfathered in. Businesses
and housing already in the specific plan area
will be granfathered in...”
Because areas in the Draft Envision Simi Valley
Specific Plan are within the Merged Tapo Canyon|
West End Communinity Development Project Area,
and the Commercial Community Development Project
Area, using an Enhanced Infrastructure Funding
District(EIFD)--new form of redevelopment tool--
the City is basically “double dipping” or levying
“double property taxes”! This means that the
special|independent districts(taxing entities)
will once again lose property taxes to the City!
Already the El Rancho Simi Cemetery District pays
“almost fifteen grand” to cover the Successor
Agency’s CDA Administrative costs and possibly
other City related items! The Cemetery District
does not receive any funds from the Commercial
Community Development Project Area! This might
be the same situation with an EIFD in place!
EXHIBIT 2
499
2 #2 - If the Draft Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan
is supported by you, please keep in mind that
the additional new areas that will need to be
“grandfathered in” are going to have to deal with
“GRANDFATHER PROPERTY RIGHTS” in REAL ESTATE
matters. Property owners and buyers have to:

* Research Zoning History!

* Inspect Property Records!

* Consult Local Authorities!

* Review Title Reports!

* Seek Legal Advice!

ADDITION TO THE DRAFT ENVISION SIMI VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN

1. The Specific Plan needs a BIBLIOGRAPHY!

QUESTIONS

1. Does a “grandfathered” property impact a residential “homestead declaration”?

2. What is the date of the Simi Valley Transportation
Model(SVTM), and the Metrolink plan mentioned on

accommodate the improvments identified in...”?

3. Is the Fruitless Chinese Pistache|Pistacia
chinesis ‘Keith Davey’ tree truly non-fruit
bearing(Page 153)--the Town Center’s olive trees
create a lot of debris, and stain the concrete?

4. Is an Enhanced Infrastructure Funding District
(EIFD) codified in the California Constitution?

5. Is planning, or any other City staff familiar with
the Ventura County Disability Access Strategic
Plan 2024-2027?

500
3 6. Will planning, or any other City staff be going to the Couty of Ventura’s “First-Of-Its-Kind
Statewide Government And Disability Summit” that
will be held from September 24 - 27, 2024?
Sincerely
Teresa Jordan
Attachments:

October 11, 2010, Simi Valley City Council Staff
Report; Agenda Item No. 6F(Adoption of Resolution
Approving A Redevelopment Survey Area). (Page 6,
Attachment A Survey Area Map.)
November 8, 2010, Simi Valley City Council Staff
Report; Agenda Item No. 6A(Adoption of Resolution
Approving the Proposed Project Area Boundaries and
Preliminary Plan, Establishing a Base Year
Assessment
Roll For Allocation of Taxes, Establishing
an Eminent Domain Policy, and Finding that a
Project Area Committee is not Necessary for the
Proposed Commercial Community Development Project).
(Page 29, Appendix A Existing Project Area Map,

501
502
503
Simi Valley, CA
July 30, 2024
Naren Gunasekera
Simi Valley City Hall
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Re: Draft Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan.

Dear Naren Gunasekera:

I have a couple of questions on the Draft Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan.

QUESTIONS

1. Are the mapped areas for the Los Angeles Avenue
Corridor, and the Tapo Street Area in the “Flyer”
already part of the Merged Tapo Canyon|West End
Community Development Project, and the 2011 City
Council approved Merger(Commercial) to the Merged
Tapo Canyon|West End Community Development Project?

2. Will the proposed Draft Envision Simi Valley Los
Angeles Avenue Corridor, and Tapo Street Area
Specific Plan impact the Merged Tapo Canyon|
West End Community Development Project Area, the
Merged Commercial Tapo Canyon|West End Community
Development Project Area, and the areas of other
Community Development Project Areas for which there
are “agreements” in place? If so, how? If not,
why will they not be impacted?

3. Will the property taxing entities(agencies) funding
be impacted?

4. When was the Los Angeles Avenue Planning Overlay
(LAAPO) District approved, or adopted?

5. When was the Tapo Area Planning Overlay(TAPO)
District approved, or adopted?
EXHIBIT 3
504
2 6. Does the City have a copy of the Vision 2020 SEEDS For The Future report?

7. Does the City have a copy of the Vision 2020 SEEDS
For The Future report’s accompanying Implementation
Plan?

8. During the 2010 to 2011 Merger(Commercial) to the
Merged Tapo Canyon|West End Community Development
Project Area’s City/CDA redevelopment process,
staff notified the property taxing entities
(agencies), will this same notification process
take place for the Envision Simi Valley Specific
Plan process? If so, is the El Rancho Simi
Cemetery District on the contacts’ list?

9. What State of California law, or code, governs or
authorizes Enhanced Infrastructure Financing
Districts(EIFDs)?

10. Once approved/adopted, can the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan be amended; that is what has occurred
through the years with other areas’ specific plans?

Naren Gunasekera, the Draft Envision Simi Valley
Specific Plan looks even more professional now with the inclusion of the cover, and the table of contents pages.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Teresa Jordan

505
1 From: Teresa Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2024 2:32 PM
To: planningcomments
Subject: Agenda Item No. 11.A.2(Envision Simi Valley Comments) Attachments: 09_03_2024_MPC.docx
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 Members of the Comm
ission:

Attached is my September 3, 2024 letter for
Agenda Item No. 11.A.2(SP-S-2024-0002,
GPA-2024-0002, and Z-S-2024-0002, the
Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan for the
Los Angeles and Tapo Street areas).

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Teresa Jordan
Simi Valley, CA
EXHIBIT 4
506

Simi Valley, CA
September 3, 2024

Simi Valley Planning Commission
Simi Valley City Hall
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063

Re: Agenda Item No. 11.A.2(Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan public hearing).

Dear Members of the Commission:

It dawned on me that to date, I have not seen any
documentation relative to the number of housing units, and businesses built(or rehabilitated) during each of the City and Community Development Agency’s Community Development Project Areas since the 1980s.

QUESTIONS

1. How many housing units were built, and how many
businesses were built(or rehabilitated) during the
original Tapo Canyon Community Development Project
Area?

2. How many housing units were built, and how many
businesses were built(or rehabilitated) during the
original West End Community Development Project
Area?

3. How many housing units were built, and how many
businesses were built(or rehabilitated) during the
Merged Tapo Canyon|West End Community Development
Project Area?

4. How many housing units were built, and how many
businesses were built(or rehabilitated) from the
Merger of the Commercial Community Development
Project Area to the Merged Tapo Canyon|West End
Community Development Project Area from 2011 to
the present(2024)?

507

2 2
Members of the Commission, while it is vital to know if our City is meeting the RHNA’s, and complying with State of California housing laws, it’s crucial for the City Council, the Planning Comission, residents, and most of all the
taxpayers to have such information available before an
Enhanced Infrastructure Funding District(EIFD) is approved/ adopted in our municipality! Thank you.

Sincerely,

Teresa Jordan

508
1 From: Andrew Graves
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2024 12:44 AM
To: planningcomments
Subject: Comment for Item 11.A.2 (Planning Commission Meeting 9/4/2024) 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.

Hello Commissioners,
I am writing to leave my enthusiastic support for the Envision Simi Valley plan as it stands. Our city desperately needs more housing, and allowing it to fill up our downtown instead of destroying our open space is the direction we should be moving. I also appreciate that there are plans to upgrade the cycling infrastructure around these areas to help reduce the local trips that people will be taking for groceries, dining out, and other recreational activities.

I also believe that some of the recommendations made by some of the Neighborhood Councils, while made in good faith, do not have our best long-term interests in mind.

1. Develop hillsides instead of only valley floor
a. This would encroach our receding open space, cost the city more money in utility / road maintenance and encourage more VMT as drivers would need to commute farther to do anything in the city. These properties also tend to cost more in Simi and would only serve to provide an enclave for wealthy residents at a cost to the general tax base of the city.

2. Not extending the Specific Plan west of First Street a. I don't see any tangible benefits to stopping the Envision Simi Valley plan at first street.

3. Concerns regarding increased traffic by eliminating lanes for bike lanes a. The benefits of providing clean and safe active tr ansportation infrastructure for residents massively outweighs any perceived negatives of reducing travel lanes. Getting locals out of their car and on to smaller vehicles and/or their own two legs will significantly reduce the amount of traffic on our streets. Most people. People should not be using LA as a through street when we have a freeway a few blocks to the north.

4. Concerns regarding bike/car conflict.
a. These can be mitigated with high-qua lity bike intersection infrastructure. VCTC/Caltrans is starting to experiment with these by the Thousand Oaks Transit Center Lastly, I believe this is the best way the city can preserve its character while also allocating space for people who either prefer to live in a more dense setting or cannot afford to get a more costly single family home. As a last added benefit, these development zones have the opportunity to provide the city with a more solid and substantial tax base to give additional support to our amazing schools, parks and other amenities.

I love what I'm seeing from our city regarding this plan, and it makes me proud to be a resident of a forward-thinking city. I urge the Planning Commission to send the Envision Simi Valley plan, the General Plan and Zone Change to the City Council for approval.

Best,
Andrew Graves
EXHIBIT 5
509
1 From: Jackson Piper
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2024 11:39 AM
To: planningcomments
Subject: Item 11.A.2 - Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan 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 Planning Commissioners,
As a housing activist throughout Ventura County over the past five years, I have advocated for many projects and plans in order to bring about development that will provide substantial amounts of new affordable housing and that is necessary to help make up the shortfall of many thousands of housing units that has been created throughout the County over the previous four decades. The plan before you, which would enable the creation of many new homes and new commercial spaces through the proposed gradual redevelopment of only one percent of the city, stands among the best.

The Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan is the greatest opportunity that the city has to provide a substantial amount of new affordable housing and to concentrate the majority of housing development in the places best suited to support that development. Without plans creating a well-defined blueprint for how affordable housing can be added within the city over the coming decades, Simi Valley risks becoming a place where housing is increasingly out of reach, even for many people who currently live in the city. Without enough available affordable housing, businesses will suffer from a lack of enough customers and employees, schools will see declining enrollment, more individual residents and families will be on the edge of falling into poverty and homelessness, and the quality of life within the community will deteriorate. As this affordability crisis has been decades in the making, it is already possible to look around and see these impacts taking place.

If it is enacted as envisioned, this plan will provide Simi Valley with two new mixed-use districts that create a significant number of new and much needed housing units, both at market-rate and affordable in the categories defined by the state.

These districts will serve as economic and social hubs for the community, all while leaving the vast majority of the city to experience only incremental, gradual levels of change based on the laws applicable outside of the specific plan area from the City and from the state. For residents who want to preserve the character of the city as it is now, this represents the best opportunity to do so for a majority of the city while still allowing for some necessary growth to be concentrated in a few key areas. This will benefit current and future residents of the city as well as support the local economy by significantly increasing the City’s residential capacity and enabling the kind of denser development patterns that urban economics has repeatedly proven to generate far more tax revenue per acre, and create far greater fiscal solvency for communities, than the typical low-density suburban development patterns are capable of.

In addition to the prospect of new market-rate and affordable housing for the City and of revived hubs of social and economic activity, it is quite exciting to see the potential for transportation improvements such as the proposed longer- term, Complete Streets-type protected bicycle facilities along Los Angeles Avenue that will enable people who wish to ride bicycles across much of Simi Valley to do so safely, and with greatly reduced conflict with car traffic. More of this is needed in all of our communities, and encouraging such facilities to be built can have many co-benefits for the community such as improved public health outcomes due to an increase in physical activity among residents. It would similarly be a great benefit to both the City and its residents for a second Metrolink station to be developed adjacent to the Los Angeles Avenue area of the specific plan, to provide easy access to local housing and amenities without requiring people to drive and park a vehicle within the City, as well as access to employment opportunities outside of the City for residents of the EXHIBIT 6
510
2 area.

Please recommend to the City Council that they approve the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan and the related General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Municipal Code update, and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan as presented here.

Thank you,

Jackson Piper
Co-lead, Ventura County YIMBY
511