A public hearing to consider a request from Sentry Property Group, LLC for a General Plan Amendment (GPA-2024-0001), Zone Change (Z-S-2024-0003), Planned Development Permit (PD-S-2024-0005), Tentative Map (TT-2024-0004), and Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA-2024-0003) to change the General Plan Land Use designation from Moderate Density and Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, change the Zoning designation from Residential Moderate Density (RMod) and Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential High Density (RH), to construct a new 60-unit, multi-family residential condominium development with three affordable units on a 5.72-acre site located at 1761, 1801, and 1807 Oak Road; a determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; introduction of an ordinance, and adoption of resolutions — Simi Valley City Council, June 8, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

273
pads, falling downward from north to south toward a Ventura County Flood Control Channel.

The properties are bounded by developed residential properties to the north, east (across Oak Road), west and south, with the property at 1761 being an undeveloped fallow area on both sides of the Ventura County Flood Control Channel.

One of the six (6) Oak Trees is on the residential lot at 1807 Oak Road. One of the Oak Trees is on the residential lot at 1801 Oak Road. And four (4) of the Oak Trees are on the fallow lot at 1761 Oak Road.

Oak Tree T-1 is a Mature Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), located in the center of the property at 1807 Oak Road, near the north property line.

Oak Tree T-10 is also a Mature Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), located in the north west area of the property at 1801 Oak Road.

Oak Tree T-41, is a Mature Valley Oak (Quercus lobata). Oak Trees T -42 is a Semi-Mature Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), T-47 is a Semi-Mature Valley Oaks (Quercus lobata). T-41 and T-42 are generally located in the center area of the lot at 1761 Oak Road. T-47 is located in the south westerly area of the lot at 1761 Oak Road, not far from the north side of a Ventura County Flood Control Channel.

Oak Tree T-51 is located in the central area of the southern portion of the lot at 1761 Oak Road, near the south side of the Ventura County Flood Control Channel.

WORK PROCEDURES (AS APPLICABLE)
All work, as applicable, (construction/maintenance activities) around the existing Oak Trees, shall follow the following work procedure program. This program has been developed to minimize the impacts to each Tree and protect them from unscheduled damage and unauthorized treatment per the following:

1. All work within the Oak Tree aerial/root zone, even though this zone may be outside the approved Oak Tree protection fencing, shall be regularly observed by the Project Consulting Arborist.

2. The extent of all new construction work affecting Oak Trees shall be staked, where applicable, by field survey and reviewed by the Project Consulting Arborist.

3. Any approved pruning and/or treatment, as applicable, shall be done by a qualified Tree Trimmer, and observed by the Project Consulting Arborist.

4. Hand dig vertical trenches for walls/footings or fence posts at the final cut line to the final grade level to determine whether "bridging-over," moving footings/posts or clean cutting and sealing any and all roots encountered, is appropriate, as approved by the Project Consulting Arborist. (This procedure will protect the root system from unnecessary damage by excavation equipment).

Page 2 of 11 ends

274

5. All footings for wall construction (as applicable) shall be designed to provide minimal or no impact to the Tree; and, "L" type footings shall be vectored in an outward direction, away from the Tree and shall be backfilled with topsoil.

6. Unless waived, a five (5') foot high temporary chain link fence shall be constructed at the approved/ permitted work limit, and as directed, to protect the tree(s) from unauthorized damage. This fence shall remain in place until completion of construction. Should any work be necessary within the "Protected Zone", and the temporary fence must be opened, the Project Consulting Arborist must direct all work within the "Protected Zone" at any time the fence is open.

7. No work within the aerial/root zone of the Oak Trees shall be done beyond that which was approved/permitted without obtaining written approval prior to proceeding.

8. The area within the chain link fence shall not be used for material or equipment storage or parking at any time.

9. No chemicals or herbicides shall be applied within 100' of an Oak Tree's aerial/root zone.

10. Copies of the following shall be maintained on the site during any work to or around the Oak Trees, as applicable:

Oak Tree Report
Oak Tree Permit
Engineering Plans
Project Conditions
Inspection Ticket
City of Simi Valley Municipal Code (SMC section 9-38)
Approved Site Plan
During any construction and/or treatment, Tree work and impacts must be monitored to further mitigate shock symptoms, should they occur. Temporary water must be provided to irrigate the Trees, to remain protected-in-place and to wash the dust from the foliage, as directed by the Project Consulting Arborist .

PROTECTION
Unless waived by the City of Simi Valley in order to preserve Oak Trees in a construction area, a minimum five (5') foot chain link fence must be installed at the limit of the "Protected Zone" of those Oak Trees, to remain-in-place, prior to clearing, grubbing, demolition, grading, construction, construction and/or treatment, in order to protect the sensitive Z.O.N.E./fenced area, during all work operations.

Z.O.N.E = "Zone Of Nutraire Endemic" (the area of natural or amended planting medium that may extend to or beyond the dripline of a native tree). Oak Tree care and maintenance information, as provided by the City of Simi Valley, should be followed, as well as regular monitoring throughout each tree's life cycle, by a qualified Project Consulting Arborist.

Page 3 of 11 ends

275
The Project Consulting Arborist must "function" as the fence for any work necessary, within the Z.O.N.E. and/or fenced area, while directing or observing work in and near any Oak Tree to be protected-in-place.

EVALUATION CRITERIA
In evaluating Oak Trees, as with any other trees, the reporting format records the external observation of the Oak Trees at the time of the "survey," including trunk size by diameter at breast height (4'-6" above grade), spread of the branching system to the outer dripline, approximate height of the Oak Trees' canopy, surface observation of the Trees' conditions and other pertinent information. The rating designation assigns health and aesthetic values for each Tree.

Ratings from "A" to "F," with an "A" rating as the indicator of a tree exhibiting the best condition of the species as compared to other Oak Tree species located in the immediate site area, and the lower letters indicating lesser ratings of the species as compared to other Oak Tree species located in the immediate site area. A "B" rating represents an above average condition for the species. The "C" rating represents an average condition for the species. The "D" rating represents a below average condition for the species. And, the "F" rating means that the tree is either dead or a candidate for removal for health or hazard reasons. Plus(+) and minus(-) sub-ratings are assigned where a clear letter designation is not appropriate. An "E" rating is not used in order to avoid confusion with the term "Excellent." NUMERIC EQUIVALENTS:

A+ ==100%
A == 90%
A- == 80%
B+ == 70%
8 == 60%
8- == 50%,
C+ == 40%
C+ == 30%
C- == 20%
D+ == 10%
D == 5%

CARE AND SAFETY/WARRANTIES
It must be noted that the Oak Trees referred to in this report are living organisms, and are therefore subject to change. And, since internal trunk, crown or subsurface systems were not investigated, no warranties, neither expressed nor implied, are made that these Oak Trees will be in any condition other than as observed and reported herein beyond the date of theinventory walk-thru ("survey"). Information for the care and maintenance of Oak Trees is available from the City of Simi Valley for use in the "on-going" maintenance of Oak Trees. The preferred maintenance in the care of native Oak Trees, to be protected-in-place, is to leave them in their "natural" state/habitat and to promote and encourage proper vigor within the Oak Trees' systems. In this way, the Oak Trees' natural defenses are better able to ward off pests and diseases.

Page 4 of 11 ends

276

CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES
According to the City of Simi Valley Municipal Code (SMC section 9-38) , all work, should it be necessary within the "Protected Zone" (that area enclosed by a concentric line, at five (5') feet beyond the natural dripline of an Oak Tree, but not less than fifteen feet (15'), shall be done using hand tools under the observation of the Project Consulting Arborist. This also includes pruning/trimming for clearance, structural improvement and/or hazard. Pruning for aesthetics is not allowed nor included in the Ordinance.

GENERAL:

It is our recommendation that the following treatment(s) to the appropriate trees be implemented:

The Project Consulting Arborist shall be contacted to monitor and direct the protection of the Oak Trees to remain protected-in-place in the area of site clearing, demolition, grading and construction activities within the "Protected Zones" of all the Oak Trees.

Pruning of any branches required for construction and clearance, shall be as directed by the Project Consulting Arborist.

Removal of deadwood, clean-cutting of branch stubs and broken branch scars, and the cleaning and screening of water traps and trunk/branch cavities, shall be as directed by the Project Consulting Arborist.

Careful removal of "fill" and debris from the base of the Oak Trees' Trunks and branching, shall be as directed by the Project Consulting Arborist.

Protection of all active wildlife nests and habitat prior to, during and after the construction activities, shall be as directed by the Project Consulting Arborist.

Protection of "duff' areas, so as to allow Oak Tree seedlings to germinate and grow, shall be as directed by the Project Consulting Arborist.

Final determination for the treatment of the Oak Trees to-remain-in-place, shall be as directed by the Project Consulting Arborist. In addition to these procedures, a periodic (at least quarterly) monitoring for declining branching system is recommended.

Current maintenance procedures for the Oak Trees at the 1807, 1801 an 1761 Oak Road Property, consists of the following:

See T-1, T-10, T-41, T-42, T-47 and T-51 Tree Evaluation Forms, Photo Logs and Oak Tree Map for graphics and additional notes.

In all cases of work activity planned to and near any Protected Tree, the City Community Development Department and Project Arborist are required to be notified in advance.

The following actions are to be the topics for monitoring the Protected Trees:

Page 5 of 11 ends

277

1. JOB START
Once the Project has been Approved by the City Community Development Department and/or Planning Commission, and prior to any site mobilization and/or site clearing, a Job Start Meeting is required to be conducted with the City Community Development Department, Applicant's Construction Superintendent and Project Arborist, to review City and Project Arborist's protocols, policies and direction(s). Included in the Job-Start Meeting will be a discussion of the methods and means for protecting the Protected Trees to remain protected-in-place. Some of those protection methods and means include the installation of temporary protection fencing, the exploratory hand-digging and/or hydraulic/pneumatic spade method(s) of construction excavation procedures for locating significant roots, as well as construction of any necessary Tree root protection structures, as directed and monitored by the Project Arborist.

2. MOBILIZATION, DEMOLITION AND GRADING
Prior to any Site activity (mobilization, site clearing, demolition, grading and construction activities), a temporary protection fence must be installed along the proposed areas of hardscape demolition and grading, as directed. Because of the layout of the existing conditions, it is proposed that a four foot (4') in height, staked-in-place, orange plastic "warning-barrier" construction fence (not the normal five foot (5') in height chain link fence) be installed at least twelve inches (12") away from the proposed demolition, grading and construction limit(s). This is to allow for a buffer between the Protected Trees' "Critical Root Zones" and the work activities. Of course, any work within the Protected Zone of any Protected Tree must be directly monitored by the Project Arborist. It is a common practice, when working within the drip line of a Protected Tree, that hand-digging and/or hydraulic/pneumatic spade method(s) of excavating exploratory trenches be used to established the location(s) or absence of significant tree roots. Once significant roots have been carefully exposed, then a determination of the disposition of these roots can be established. Once established, any excavation at the same depth of the exploratory trench, while protecting roots to remain-in-place, may carefully proceed using root cutting and/or avoidance procedures, such as "bridging" techniques, or relocating construction elements.

Monitoring by the Project Arborist of hand-digging and/or small excavation equipment may proceed, as long as the excavation is on a vector outward from the location of any Protected Tree trunk and on the non-tree side of the exploratory trench.

3. CONSTRUCTION AND FENCE RECONFIGURATION
During the mobilization, site clearing, demolition, grading and construction activities, the four foot (4') in height, staked-in-place, orange plastic "warning-barrier'' construction fence must be maintained in-place. Any proposed removal, relocation or reconfiguration of said construction fence must be approved by the City Community Development Department.

The Applicant must properly notify the City Community Development Department whenever an activity is to take place near or within the Protected Zone of any Protected Tree. The Project Arborist must be on-site to monitor the work whenever any activity is to occur at or within the Projected Zone of any Protected Tree.

Page 6 of 11 ends

278
construction fill, as a result of the work activities (if allowed), shall be continuously removed using hand tools.

Thereafter, any required re-compaction shall be no greater than eighty percent (80%), as approved by the Project Arborist, City Community Development Department.

Along with protecting the trunk, the canopy and the root zone of any Protected Tree, it may also be necessary to prune a Protected Tree to allow clearance for pedestrians and vehicles, as well as for the proposed new Project elements.

A qualified Tree Company, acceptable to Community Development Department and Project Arborist, must be used for any pruning and/or treatment to any Protected Tree, including pruning for clearance, for general health, for structural improvement and/or wind-load reduction, etc. In addition, the Project Arborist must be notified prior to any canopy or root pruning activity is to occur to any Protected Tree, so a monitoring site visit can be scheduled.

4. PROJECT ARBORIST OBSERVATION AND MONITORING
Upon the required notification, all work conducted within the Protected Zone of any Protected Tree, must be monitored by the Project Arborist. The Project Arborist will conduct Observation and Monitoring Services based on work activities taking place under a "Direct Monitoring" or "In-Direct Monitoring" scenario.

NOTE
A. "Direct Monitoring" (regular visits) shall be employed whenever a new activity, such as mobilization, site clearing, demolition, grading, utility trenching, construction or other work activity is to take place within the Protected Zone of any Protected Tree.

B. "Indirect Monitoring" (random visits) shall be employed throughout the life of the Project and whenever any work activity is suspected to occur within the Protected Zone. This may include any work activity that has previously impacted any Protected Tree, even though no further impact is expected.

The Project Arborist must provide the necessary monitoring while any work is occurring within the Protected Zone of any Protected Tree. In those cases, the Project Arborist shall essentially "Act-as-the warning-barrier construction fence," to monitor techniques, such as hand-digging, hydraulic/ pneumatic spade method(s) and/or the limited use of a small electric jack-hammer or mini-tractor/ backhoe, for careful excavation of curbs, footings and utility trenches, as well as the over-excavation and construction activities of the work, etc.

IMPACTS AND TREATMENT:

The trunk and dripline area of Oak Tree T-51 are not expected to be impacted by or pruned for clearance for the proposed new building project footprint, Oak Road improvements and construction activity areas. No parking or storage of materials of any kind or equipment is allowed within the Protected Zone of any Oak Tree to be protected-in-place.

Page 7 of 11 ends

279

SUMMARY
Because of the location of the proposed building footprint and construction improvement activity areas, Oak Trees T-1, T-10, T-41, T -42 and T -4 7 are within the footprint of the proposed new building footprints and construction improvement activity areas: therefore, these five (5) Oak Trees are scheduled for removal and replacement, per City requirements. The impacts are estimated in the encroachment calculation below.

ENCROACHMENT CALCULATIONS:

T-1 Average "dripline" diameter= 209.625'
Average "dripline" radius = 104.625'
Average "Protected Zone" diameter = 100.00'
Average "Protected Zone" radius = 50.00'
Total Area of "dripline" = r x r x 3.1416 = _±328.69 sq. ft.

Area of "dripline" encroachment= .±100.00 sq. ft.

Percentage of encroachment = .±100.00%
Total Area of "Protected Zone"= r x r x 3.1416 = ±7,854.00 sq. ft.

Area of "Protected Zone" encroachment= .±100.00 sq. ft.

Percentage of encroachment= .±100.00%
T-10 Average "dripline" diameter = 56. 75'
Average "dripline" radius = 28.375'
Average "Protected Zone" diameter = 66. 75'
Average "Protected Zone" radius = 33.375'
Total Area of "dripline" = r x r x 3.1416 = .±2,529.43 sq. ft.

Area of "dripline" encroachment= .±100.00 sq. ft.

Percentage of encroachment= .±100.00%
Total Area of "Protected Zone"= r x r x 3.1416 = .±3,499.40 sq. ft.

Area of "Protected Zone" encroachment= .±100.00 sq. ft.

Percentage of encroachment = .±100.00%
T-41 Average "dripline" diameter= 65.76'
Average "dripline" radius= 32.88'
Average "Protected Zone" diameter= 75.76'
Average "Protected Zone" radius = 42.88'
Total Area of "dripline" = r x r x 3.1416 = .±3,396.37 sq. ft.

Area of "dripline" encroachment = .±3,396.37 sq. ft.

Percentage of encroachment = .±100.00%
Total Area of "Protected Zone"= r x r x 3.1416 = .±5,776.44 sq. ft.

Area of "Protected Zone" encroachment= 5,776.44 sq. ft.

Percentage of encroachment= .±100.00%

Page 8 of 11 ends

280
T-42 Average "dripline" diameter= 31.00'
Average "dripline" radius = 15.50'
Average "Protected Zone" diameter = 41.00'
Average "Protected Zone" radius = 20.50'
Total Area of "dripline" = r x r x 3.1416 = ±754.77 sq. ft.

Area of "dripline" encroachment= ±754.77 sq. ft.

Percentage of encroachment = ±100.00%
Total Area of "Protected Zone"= r x r x 3.1416 = ±1,320.26 sq. ft.

Area of "Protected Zone" encroachment= ±1,320.26 sq. ft.

Percentage of encroachment = ±100.00%
T-47 Average "dripline" diameter= 13.50'
Average "dripline" radius= 6.75'
Average "Protected Zone" diameter = 23.5'
Average "Protected Zone" radius = 11. 75'
Total Area of "dripline" = r x r x 3.1416 = ±9,143.14 sq. ft.

Area of "dripline" encroachment= ±143.14 sq. ft.

Percentage of encroachment = ±100.00%
Total Area of "Protected Zone"= r x r x 3.1416 = ±433. 74 sq. ft.

Area of "Protected Zone" encroachment = _±433. 7 4 sq. ft.

Percentage of encroachment = ±100.00%
T-51 Average "dripline" diameter= 47.50'
Average "dripline" radius = 23. 75'
Average "Protected Zone" diameter= 57.50'
Average "Protected Zone" radius = 28. 75'
Total Area of "dripline" = rx r x 3.1416 = ±1,772.06 sq. ft.

Area of "dripline" encroachment= ±0.00 sq. ft.

Percentage of encroachment = ±0.00%
Total Area of "Protected Zone"= r x r x 3.1416 = ±2,596.73 sq. ft.

Area of "Protected Zone" encroachment= _±0.00 sq. ft.

Percentage of encroachment = ±0.00%
MITIGATION VALUES:

We are herein submitting the "Basic Reproduction Cost" (BRC Value) for the damage and/or loss of Oak Tree canopy/roots from the proposed property line fence. The replacement/damage for Oak Trees under 7" in diameter at breast height (54") is the value of each Oak Tree by its planted nursery container size equivalent. The following Oak Tree is proposed to be impacted by grading and/or construction activities:

Page 9 of 11 ends

281
T-1 The basic reproduction cost formula is the net Trunk Area x $150/sguare inch:
2,922.47(30.5x30.5x3.1416) x $150.00 per square inch= $438,370.50 The condition of this Tree is estimated to be 20%
$438,370.50 x .20 = $87,674.10 (Condition Value)
The impact(s) to this Tcee is estimated to be 100%
$87,674.10 x 100.00 = $87,674.10 (Impact Value)
TOTAL PRC IMPACT VALUE= ±$87,700
T-10 The basic reproduction cost formula is the net Trunk Area x $150/sguare inch:
2,642.08 (29x29x3.1416) x $150.00 per square inch= $396,312.00 T-41
The condition of this Tree is estimated to be 20%
$396,312.00 x .20 = $79,262.40 (Condition Value)
The impact(s) to this Tree is estimated to be 100%
$79,262.40 x 100.00 = $79,262.40 (Impact Value)
TOTAL PRC IMPACT VALUE= $±79,300
The basic reproduction cost formula is the net Trunk Area x $150/sguare inch:
3,019.08 (31x31x3.1416) x $150.00 per square inch= $452,862.00 The condition of this Tree is estimated to be 20%
$452,862.00 x .20 = $90,572.40 (Condition Value)
The impact(s) to this Tree is estimated to be 100%
$90,572.40 x 100.00 = $90,572.40 (Impact Value)
TOTAL PRC IMPACT VALUE = $±90,600
T-42 The basic reproduction cost formula is the net Trunk Area x $150/sguare inch:

Multi-trunk (32.5" dia. x 70%=22. 75"), 22. 75"/2=11.375 406.49 (11.375x11.375x3.1416) x $150.00 per square inch= $60,973.50 The condition of this Tree is estimated to be 20%
$60,973.50 x .20 = $12,572.40 (Condition Value)
The impact(s) to this Tree is estimated to be 100%
$12,572.40 x 100.00 = $12,572.40 (Impact Value)
TOTAL PRC IMPACT VALUE= $±12,600

Page 10 of 11 ends

282
T-47 The basic reproduction cost formula is the net Trunk Area x $150/square inch:

97.12 (5.56x5.56x3.1416) x $150.00 per square inch= $14,568.00 The condition of this Tree is estimated to be 20%
$14,568.00 x .20 = $2,913 .60 {Condition Value)
The impact(s) to this Tree is estimated to be 100%
$2,913.60 x 100.00 = $2,913.60 (Impact Value)
TOTAL PRC IMPACT VALUE= $_±_2,900
T-51 The basic reproduction cost formula is the net Trunk Area x $150/square inch:
2,642.08 (29x29x3.1416) x $150.00 per square inch= $396,312.00 The condition of this Tree is estimated to be 20%
$396,312.00 x .20 = $79,262.40 (Condition Value)
The impact(s) to this Tree is estimated to be 100%
$79,262.40 x 100.00 = $79,262.40 (Impact Value)
TOTAL PRC IMPACT VALUE= $±.79,300
Please review this Report, the attached Tree Evaluation form, Photo Log and the Tree Map, and return your comments and/or questions to:

Richard W. Campbell, ASLA, BSLA
P. 0. Box 6192 Consulting Arborist
Thousand Oaks, California 91359
Telephone (805) 375-1010
Web site= www.rwcampbellasla.com
Email = rwcampbellasla@verizon
Cordially,
Richard W. Campbell, A.S.L.A., B.

Landscape Architect/Consulting Arborist
California License# 1099, Nevada License #14

Page 11 of 11 ends

283

OAK TREE

TREE EVALUATION FORMS
284

EVALUATION FORM

OAK ROAD SOUTH
(6 OAK TREES)
TREE NO. TREE NAME TRUNK DIA(S) N NE E SE s SW w NW HT:!:. H'LTH AESTH NOTES & REMARKS

IN INCHES IN FEET
T-1 QUERCUS 68" 48'/14' 51'/10' 57'/7' 43'/11' 59'/6' 49'/8' 50'/7' 48'/14' 65' C- C- BEES, BRANCHES OVERHANG PROPERTY TO

LOBATA THE NORTH, BROKEN BRANCH SCARS, CO-

DOMINANT SCAFFOLDS , CO-DOMINANT
VALLEY OAK TOTAL= TRUNKS, CROSSING BRANCHES, MAJOR
68" DEADWOOD DEHISCING OF SMALL

BRANCHES , EPICORMIC GROWTH, MAY
QUALIFY AS "HISTORIC TREE" STATUS

AVERAGE SHOOT GROWTH, INCLUDED

BARK, INTERTWINED IN BOTTLETREE , MINOR

PIT SCALE, THINNING CANOPY, WATER TRAP

THIS TREE IS TO BE TO BE REMOVED FOR
PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS.

T-10 QUERCUS 58" 22'/9' 28'/12' 29'/4' 26'/6' 35'/7' 26'/6' 32'/14' 29'/10' 65' D D BRANCH CAVITY, BRANCHES OVERHANG

LOBATA BARN, BROKEN BRANCH SCARS ,

DEADWOOD, EPICORMIC GROWTH, BELOW
VALLEY OAK TOTAL= AVERAGE SHOOT GROWTH, HAZARDOUS
58" CONDITION, MAY QUALIFY AS "HISTORIC
TREE" STATUS PIT SCALE, PRIOR PRUNING .

THIS TREE IS TO BE REMOVED FOR PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS .

T-41 QUERCUS 62" 33'/0' 28'/8' 30'/10' 34'/7' 32'/1 '1 30'/0' 29'/6' 47'/0' 70' C C+ CANOPY ADJACENT TO CONCRETE SLAB ,

LOBATA BRANCHES ON GROUND, BROKEN BRANCH
TOTAL= SCARS, CO-DOMINANT SCAFFOLDS, CO-
VALLEY OAK 62'' DOMINANT TRUNKS, CROSSING BRANCHES

IN LOWER CANOPY, DEADWOOD,,

EPICORMIC GROWTH , EXCESS HORIZONTAL

GROWTH, EXUDATION STAINS OBSERVED,

AVERAGE SHOOT GROWTH , GROUND

SQUIRREL BURROWS IN DUFF, MAY QUALIFY
AS "HISTORIC TREE" STATUS, INCLUDED

BARK, INTERTWINED IN NATIVE

ELDERBERRY, MINOR PIT SCALE, PRIOR

PRUNING AND RECENT PRUNING OF
EASTERLY LOWER CANOPY .

THIS TREE TO BE REMOVED FOR PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS .

T-42 QUERCUS 8 .5", (2) 6"'' 11 '/0' 18'/0' 17'/0' 13'/4' 16'/0' 19'/0' 18'/0' 12'/0' 16' C+ C+ TRUNK ADJACENT TO CONCRETE SLAB ,

LOBATA BRANCHES ON GROUND, CO-DOMINANT
TOTAL= TRUNKS, CROSSING BRANCHES ,
VALLEY OAK 20.5'' DEADWOOD, DEHISCING OF SMALL

BRANCHES, MINOR EHRHORN'S SCALE,

LESS MULTI- MINOR EPICORMIC GROWTH , FILL ON
285

EVALUATION FORM

OAK ROAD SOUTH
(6 OAK TREES)

TRUNK TRUNK, FIRE DAMAGE , AVERAGE SHOOT

REDUCTION GROWTH, INCLUDED BARK, INTERTWINED IN

20.5X 70% = NATIVE RHUS, LOW BRANCHING.

TOTAL MECHANICAL DAMAGE, MINOR PIT SCALE

14.35 THIS TREE TO BE REMOVED FOR PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS.

T-47 QUERCUS 11 .125" 28'/12' 26'/3' 0'/0' 0'/0' 0'/0' 0'/0' 0'/0' 0'/0' 45' C+ C+ EPICORMIC GROWTH, GALLS , AVERAGE LOBATA SHOOT GROWTH , INTERTWINED IN T-44 AND
TOTAL= T-46, LOPSIDED CANOPY, LEANS TO
VALLEY OAK 11.125" NORTHEAST .

THIS TREE TO BE REMOVED FOR PROJECT
IMPROVEMENTS .

T-51 QUERCUS 58" 31'/5' 30'/0' 25'/14' 10'/19' 17'/37' 12'/16' 35'/0' 30'/0' 68' D D BRANCHES ON GROUND , BROKEN BRANCH

LOBATA SCARS, CODOMINANT SCAFFOLDS ,
TOTAL= CONJOINED SCAFFOLDS, CROSSING
VALLEY OAK 58" BRANCHES, MAJOR DEADWOOD , DEHISCED
MAJOR 6" SOUiHERLY TRUNK, EPICORMIC

GROWTH, BELOWAVERAGE SHOOT

GROWTH, HAZARDOUS CONDITION, MAY
QUALIFY AS "HISTORIC TREE" STATUS

HOLLOW TRUNK, INCLUDED BARK , MINOR

PIT SCALE, PRIOR PRUNING , REMNANTS OF

A TREE HOUSE ANS ROPE SWING IN
CANOPY, ROT OBSERVED.

PROTECT THIS HAZARDOUS OAK TREE IN

PLACE, WITH WARNING NOTIFICATIONS FOR
SAFETY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY .
2 286

TREE PHOTO LOG
287
T-1
T-41
T-47

PHOTO LOG
(6 Oak Trees)
T-10
T-42
T-51
288

TREE MAP
289
w
:::::,
z
w
>
<C
en
w
...J
w
C,
z
<C
en
0 0:,
a,
N
---
..-, .
<O sj-
• sj-
N cx:i
~ ~ r-..-,
<O ....,
"' ro z
I :
--- FD. VENTURA COUNTY S.S.M. IN
WELL PER V.C.F.B. 1714-M PG 15.

D. G S&W STAMPED
LS 8141 • MID-LOT L
D
D.1 1/2" IP & TAG TAMPED "LS 61 4",
. 1' PER 44 PM 8~~==~'-"J
D
1-
1-
1-
1-
1-
1-
i
i
I
'--;> I
I
I
I
I
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. [XXXXX]

FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES

IN THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY, COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ic
1---UND VE OPE
C
10 T-7a ----._o _
' =,--3-H,l
---===--
---... s-r-6 •/ ,..___ ,_.----, 7
'\.. ,.,.-- ...... ,
/ . ~} L ______ ___; -
I
I •
• • '
PTR-2
PARCEL 1
----
I I I I I I I I I I 111--1 I
·"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEVI ~OP~D RI SI ENTIAL PROPERTY
~~ , I
I
R 1
AR E 1
')~ ( J
l(~ ._,.,g
CHICA%~~~ LLC
,'1
APN: 0
\ 5-t .) ,f)
~11
~- I --.... ;

I I I I I I I
...I
f-
:,-:
0 u.
"' 0 ,..._
N N
..-, u. t')
:c '
' t:; w
3::

COCHRAN smm
LOS ANGELES AVf.

KATHERINE RD

VICINITY MAP
N.T.S
CIVIL ENGINEER:

C&V CONSUL TING, INC.
9830 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92618
PHONE: (949) 445-1833
SUBDIVIDER:

OAK ROAD SOUTH OWNERS LLC
C/0 SENRTY PROPERTY GROUP, INC.
530 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, SUITE 100
IRVINE, CA 92618
(949) 789-4555
CONTACT: SALVATORE PROVENZA, PARTNER
SITE ADDRESS:
1761, 1801 & 1807 OAK ROAD
SIMI VALLEY, CA 93063
LAND USE SUMMARY:

GROSS AREA: 5.721 ACRES
NET AREA: 5.331 ACRES
TOTAL PROPOSED LOTS: 1 (NUMBERED)
LOT 1 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
TOTAL DWEWNG UNITS: 60

RESIDENTIAL UNITS
LEGEND:
---~- CENTERLINE

SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY

EASEMENT
EX. LOT LINE
EX. R/W
SHEET INDEX:

SHEET NO.

SHEET 1
SHEET 2
SHEET 3
SHEET 4
SHEET 5
SHEET 6
SHEET 7

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN

PRELIMINARY SECTIONS

PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN

PRELIMINARY FIRE ACCESS &

HYDRANT LOCATION PLAN
)-- ___ ----.I'---- ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _ __ ~ ___ N00-20'05"E 1395._52_' __ --- y O s E M IT E AV E. N00"24'42"E 1395.52'
BASIS OF BEARINGS;
FD. VENTURA COUNTY S.S.M.

IN WELL PER 40 RS 37/41

THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE BEARING
NORTH 72' 43' 17" WEST BETWEEN CALIFORNIA SPATIAL

REFERENCE CENTER CONTINUOUSLY OPERATING REFERENCE
STATIONS "TOST" AND "LAPC".
aooo NOTE;
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN "ZONE X" (AN AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD) AND "ZONE AE" (REGULATORY FLOODWAY CHANNEL) PER FEMA FIRM MAP NO. 06111C0868E, PANEL NO. 868 OF 1275 EFFECTIVE 1/20/2010.

DATUM STATEMENT:

ALL COORDINATES SHOWN HEREON ARE GRID VALUES BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, CCS83, ZONE Ill, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983, 2010.00 EPOCH, NAD83(2011), IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTIONS 8801-8819. A GENERALIZED COMBINATION SCALE FACTOR OF 0.99991359 WAS USED FOR THIS PROJECT AT NORTHING 1921739.67 EASTING 6357282.99 AT AN ORTHOMETRIC ELEVATION OF 1019.19' (NGVD29). ALL DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND. TO OBTAIN GRID DISTANCES, MULTIPLY GROUND DISTANCES BY THE COMBINATION SCALE FACTOR.

BENCHMARK STATEMENT:

COUNTY OF VENTURA BENCHMARK NO. "68-1-RS"
ELEV: 1013.079 FEET (NGVD 29 1982 ADJ.)
I
DESCRIBED AS: IN THE CITY OF SIMI, AT THE INTERSECTION OF LOS

ANGELES AVENUE AT YOSEMITE AVENUE, IN THE SOUTHWEST CONCRETE CURB RETURN, A 2-INCH BRASS DISK IN TOP OF CONCRETE CURB, IN FRONT OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT STANDARD.

PUBLIC UTILITIES SERVICES:
}ELEPHONE:

AT&T
2250 WARD A VE.

SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065
PH: (805) 583-8529
ELECTRIC:

SO. CALIFORNIA EDISON
3589 FOOTHILL DR.

THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91361
PH: (805) 655-4555
CABLE TV:

SPECTRUM
1555 SIMI TOWN CENTER WAY
SUITE 81-125
SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065
PH: (888) 406-7063
WATER:

GOLDEN STATE WATER CO.
4680 LOS ANGELES AVE, SUITE H
SIMI VALLEY, CA 93063
PH: (805) 520-2394
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT:

THE SURVEY ON WHICH THIS VESTING TENTATIVE

MAP IS BASED WAS DONE BY ME, OR UNDER
MY DIRECTION. FIELDWORK WAS COMPLETED ON
AUGUST 11,2023.

DANE P. MCDOUGALL. LS. 9297
GAS:

SO. CALIFORNIA GAS CO.
977 CHAMBERS LANE
SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065
PH: (818) 262-4835
SEWER:

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
600 W. LOS ANGELES A VE.

SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065
PH: (805) 583-6440
ENGINEER'S STATEMENT:

THIS VESTING TENTATIVE MAP WAS PREPARED BY
ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION ON MARCH 15,
2024.

RYAN J. BITTNER, R.C.E. 68167
ZONING/ GENERAL PLAN:

EXISTING ZONING: RESIDENTIAL MODERATE DENSITY (RMOD)/

RESIDENTIAL MEDIAN DENSITY (RM)
PROPOSED ZONING: RESIDENTIAL MODERATE DENSITY (RMOD)
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY/

RESIDENTIAL MODERATE DENSITY
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL MODERATE DENSITY LEGAL DESCRIPTION/ EASEMENTS: ' SEE SHEET 2 OF 7.

VESTED OWNER:

PIB-1:

ROBIN GENCHEL, TRUSTEE OF THE EXEMPTION TRUST ESTABLISHED UNDER THE CANNON TRUST DATED JUNE 23, 1990, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1 / 4 INTEREST,

ROBIN GENCHEL, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE FLORENCE AXELROD LIVING TRUST DATED MARCH 17, 1990, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1 / 4 INTEREST AND DAVID B.

BAUM, A SINGLE MAN, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/2 INTEREST, ALL AS TENANTS IN COMMON, SUBJECT TO ITEM NO. 11 AND 12
PIR-2:

CRP MANAGEMENT, INC.

PJR-3;
BRADLY BARR COX AND ETELKA E. COX, TRUSTEES OF THE BRADLY AND ETELKA COX FAMILY TRUST, DATED: 9/28/00, SUBJECT TO ITEM NO. 12 1" = 50'
~~
0 25 50 100
.,w:::---1~-lTRINIIMLCIOO'Dlt-N
T- ----t-+---... ..... .-.,

OAK TREE LEGEND
SVP-2024-0001 [GPA-2024-0001] ;

TREE MAP
Z-S-2024-0003 l
PD-S-2024-0005 c
\ TT-2024-0004 (
~-----------------------~-------------------------,----------'--------------------,--------~ CITY OF SIMI VALLEY PROJECT NO. f; PREPARED BY:
[~.1~•1--19830 IRVINE CENlER DRIVE
-~4_TJ 11111' 111 IRVINE, CALlf'ORNIA 92618
- .... .::::.-.:=11,1 (949) 9 15-3800
* CONSULTING. INC. [email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING & SURVEYING WWW.CVC-INC.NET
PREPARED FOR:

OAK ROAD SOUTH OWNERS U.C
C/0 SENTRY GROUP, INC.
530 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, SUITE 100
IRVINE, CA 92618
(949) 789-4555
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT WDLA-002 !i
1----------------------------t------t~·
TENTA~IVE TRACT MAP NO. [XXXXX]
TrNTATIVE TRACT MAP

OAK ROAD
SI
I
I VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 93063
SHEET
OF
~~
1 7
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROPERTY
(48 NON-NATIVE TREES)

TREE REPORT
RICHARD W. CAMPBELL

TREE PRESERVATION SPECIALIST

CONSUL TING ARBORIST
299

TABLE OF CONTENT S

REPORT TITLE (OVERLEAF)

REPORT TEXT

TREE EVALUATION FORMS

PHOTO LOGS

TREE REPLACEMENT

APPRAISAL SPREADSHEET

TREE MAP
300
Oak R9ad South Owners, LLC
c/o Sentry Property Group
530 Technology Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, California. 92618
Attn.: Sal Provenza, Curt Crandall
SUBJECT SITE:

MATURE NON-NATIVE

TREE REPORT
SEPTEMBER 19, 2025

MATURE NON-NATIVE TREE REPORT

FOR TREES AT OAK ROAD SOUTH PROPERTIES
(1807, 1801 AND 1761 OAK ROAD)

IN THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA

GENERAL STATEMENT
On August 30 and September 3 thru 4, 2025, Tree "Surveys" were conducted at the Subject Site.

Ground level field inventories of external details (caliper size, general health, physical and aesthetic character) were recorded, based upon the existing site conditions and the C&V Consulting, Inc Tentative Tract Map. Forty-eight (48) Non-Native on-site Trees were evaluated for their present condition based on City's requirements. The results of the "Surveys" are shown on the attached Tree Evaluation Summary Forms, Tree Replacement Appraisal Value charts and. as outlined herein. The Trees in the Tree Evaluation Summary were identified as four (5) Cupania anacardioides, seventeen (17) Eucalyptus globulus, five (5) Eucalyptus polyanthemos, nine (9) Eucalyptus sideroxylon, one (1) Fraxinus uhdei, one (1) Phoenix canariensis two (2) Podocarpus macrophyllus, one (1) Punica granatum, two (2) Salix lasiolepis, three (3) Sambucus mexicana, two (2) Washingtonia robusta Trees, at the three properties. For six (6) Quercus agrifolia, see New Oak Tree Report, under separate cover.

It should be noted that seventy per cent (70%) of the total calipers of Multi-trunk Trees, as a general accepted practice, are the equivalent diamete~ of a single trunk tree.

It should also be noted that the·values of Eucalyptus globulus, Salix lasiolepis and Sambucus mexicana have been downgraded. Eucalyptus globulus for its short lived nature, limb dehiscing/leaf drop and invasive root system. Salix lasiolepis and Sambucus mexicana for not being compatible with urban settings.

Page 1 of 5 ends

301

PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose and scope of this Report, in accordance with the City of Simi Valley Municipal Code, Article 15, :The Preservation, Cutting and Removal of Mature Trees, is to identify Mature non Native Trees (Trees with a diameter of 9½" or 72" of trunk area and greater, at 4'-6" (54") above grade) and evaluate their present condition. A report on impacts, if known, and proposed mitigation measures is required or any submittal to the City for review by The Environmental Services Department, if any work is planned to take place within a property proposed for development." The Environmental Services Department (ESD) also requires that any of-site Mature Tree, within 20' beyond the Project boundary, be located on the Architect/Civil Plan(s).

SITE CONDITIONS
The sites for the trees are located on the west side of Oak Road at 1807, 1801 and 1761, in the "East Los Angeles Avenue Corridor" area of the City of Simi Valley, California. The existing sites are mildly sloping residential pads, falling downward from north to south toward a Ventura County Flood Control Channel. The properties are bounded by developed residential properties to the north, east (across Oak Road), west and south, with the property at 1761 an undeveloped fallow area on both sides of the Ventura County Flood Control Channel.

Forty-seven (47) Mature Non-Native Trees are positioned on the property, as well as, six {6) Native Oak Trees, which are on a separate Report. The existing properties' Trees appear to be receiving minimal maintenance and most of the Trees show effects of the neglect and recent drought conditions, although some of the trees have somehow survived the neglect and drought conditions. Seven {7) Non-Native Trees are located within the property at 1807 Oak Road.

Fifteen (15) non-Native Tree are located within the property at 1801 Oak Road. xx (x) Non-Native Trees are locate within the property at 1761 Oak Road {two on the south side of a Ventura County Flood Control Channel). Some of the Trees have some moderate to extreme pruning {topping and stub-cuts, mostly, for utility line clearance), some have broken branches and a couple have significant leans or have fallen to the ground. All of the condition factors have been incorporated into the Tree Evaluation Summary and Tree Replacement Appraisal spreadsheet.

Because of the proposed building footprint, parking areas, Oak Road improvements and ingress/egress alignments, all forty-seven {47) of the on-site mature non-native trees are proposed to be removed. One (1) mature non-native Tree (T-50), to be preserved-in-place, is generally located against a south-side Ventura County Flood Control Channel fence, about thirty feet {+30') west of Oak Road. Due to the poor conditions of many of the Trees and the lack of planting space to relocate the forty-six {46) on-site Removal Trees to new on-site locations, their loss is proposed to be mitigated by planting new Non-Native Trees in the limited planter spaces proposed on a future Plan. These Mitigation Trees are also proposed to be included on any Final Landscape Architectural Plan, to be submitted to the City at a later date.

The replacement value of the existing mature non-native trees, as per the City of Simi Valley Guidelines for TREE REPORTS for Mature Trees, are included on the attached Tree Replacement Appraisal Value chart. The existing forty-seven (47) Mature Non-Native Removal Trees "surveyed," evaluated and "valued" at the Site, are included herein, on the

Page 2 of 5 ends

302
attached Tree Evaluation Summary forms, Photo Logs, the Tree Replacement Appraisal spreadsheet and as shown on the TREE MAP. None of the Trees, on the south side of the Ventura County Flood Control Channel, are proposed to be removed.

It should be noted that seventy per cent (70%) of the total calipers of Multi-trunk Trees, as a general accepted practice, are considered as the equivalent diameter of a single trunk tree.

In all cases of work activity planned to and near any Protected Tree, the City Community Development Department and Project Arborist are required to be notified in advance.

The following actions are to be the topics for monitoring the Protected Trees:

1. JOB START
Once the Project has been Approved by the City Community Development Department and/or Planning Commission, and prior to any site mobilization and/or site clearing, a Job Start Meeting is required to be conducted with the City Community Development Department, Applicant's Construction Superintendent and Project Arborist, to review City and ProjectArborist's protocols, policies and direction(s). Included in the Job-Start Meeting will be a discussion of the methods and means for protecting the Protected Trees to remain protected-in-place. Some of those protection methods and means include the installation of temporary protection fencing, the exploratory hand-digging and/or hydraulic/pneumatic spade method(s) of construction excavation procedures for locating significant roots, as well as construction of any necessary Tree root protection structures, as directed and monitored by the Project Arborist.

2. MOBILIZATION, DEMOLITION AND GRADING
Prior to any Site activity (mobilization, site clearing, demolition, grading and construction activities), a temporary protection fence must be installed along the proposed areas of hardscape demolition and grading, as directed. Because of the layout of the existing conditions, it is proposed that a four foot (4') in height, staked-in-place, orange plastic "warning-barrier" construction fence (not the normal five foot (5') in height chain link fence) be installed at least twelve inches (12") away from the proposed demolition, grading and construction limit( s ). This is to allow for a buffer between the Protected Trees' "Critical Root Zones" and the work activities. Of course, any work within the Protected Zone of any Protected Tree must be directly monitored by the Project Arborist. It is a common practice, when working within the drip line of a Protected Tree, that hand-digging and/or hydraulic/pneumatic spade method(s) of excavating exploratory trenches be used to established the location(s) or absence of significant tree roots. Once significant roots have been carefully exposed, then a determination of the disposition of these roots can be established. Once established, any excavation at the same depth of the exploratory trench, while protecting roots to remain-in-place, may carefully proceed using root cutting and/or avoidance procedures, such as "bridging" techniques, or relocating construction elements.

Page 3 of 5 ends

303

3. CONSTRUCTION AND FENCE RECONFIGURATION
During the mobilization, site clearing, demolition, grading and construction activities, the four foot (4') in height, staked-in-place, orange plastic "warning-barrier" construction fence must be maintained in-place. Any proposed removal, relocation or reconfiguration of said construction fence must be approved by the City Community Development Department.

Existing alluvial fills shall be carefully removed from each of the Protected Tree's (to remain in-place) trunks and root zones. This task shall be accomplished using hand-digging and/or hydraulic/pneumatic spade method(s) to avoid root and trunk damage. Sloughed-off construction fill, as a result of the work activities (if allowed), shall be continuously removed using hand tools.

Thereafter, any required re-compaction shall be no greater than eighty percent (80% ), as approved by the Project Arborist, City Community Development Department.

A. "Direct Monitoring" (regular visits) shall be employed whenever a new activity, such as mobilization, site clearing, demolition, grading, utility trenching, construction or other work activity is to take place within the Protected Zone of any Protected Tree.

Page 4 of 5 ends

304
NOTE
The Project Arborist must provide the necessary monitoring while any work is occurring within the Protected Zone of any Protected Tree. In those cases, the Project Arborist shall essentially "Act as-the warning-barrier construction fence," to monitor techniques, such as hand-digging, hydraulic/ pneumatic spade method(s) and/or the limited use of a small electric jack-hammer or mini-tractor/ backhoe, for careful excavation of curbs, footings and utility trenches, as well as the over-excavation and construction activities of the work, etc.

Please review this Report, the attached Tree Evaluation Forms, Photo Log, Tree Replacement Appraisal Spreadsheet and the Tree Map, and return your comments and/or questions to:

Richard W. Campbell, ASLA, BSLA
P. 0. Box 6192 Consulting Arborist
Thousand Oaks, California 91359
Telephone (805) 375-1010
Web site= www.rwcampbellasla .com
Email = rwcampbellasla@verizon
Cordially,
Richard W. Campbell, Consulting Ar

Page 5 of 5 ends

305

MATURE NON-NATIVE

TREE EVALUATION FORMS
306

PROTECTED TREE EVALUATION FORM

OAK ROAD SOUTH
(47 MATURE NON-NATIVE TREES)
(SEE OAK TREE REPORT FOR TREES T-1, T-10, T-41, T-42, T-47 AND T-50) (#=TOTAL OF MULTI-TRUNK TREE QUALIFIES FOR 70% REDUCTION IN SIZE) TREE TREE NAME TRUNK CANOPY SPREAD HT:t H'LTH AESTH NOTES & REMARKS NO. DIA(S) IN IN FEET
INCHES
T-2 PODOCARPUS 71/2", 3" 8'-10' 24' C C CANOPY ADJACENT TO HOUSE,

MACROPHYLLUS STRESSED
#TOTAL
YEW PINE 10.5" THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-3 PODOCARPUS (2) 6", (2) 10'-12' 26' C+ C+ STRESSED
MACROPHYLLUS 2", (3)
11/2" THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

YEW PINE PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS
#TOTAL PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED

20.5"
T-4 WASHINGTONIA 16" 8'-10' 46' D+ D+ TRUNK ADJACENT TO BLOCK WALL,

ROBUSTA DEADWOOD FRONDS, STRESSED
TOTAL
MEXICAN FAN PAL M 16" THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-5 CUPANIOPSIS 5", 41/2", 14'-20' 20' C- C- CODOMINANT SCAFFOLDS, INCLUDED ANACARDIOIDES (2) 21/2", BARK LEAF SCORCH, MECHANICAL
11/2" DAMAGE, STRESSED

CARROTWOOD
TREE #TOTAL THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

17.5" PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-6 CUPANIOPSIS 61/2", 18'-20' 22' C- C- CODOMINANT SCAFFOLDS, DEADWOOD, ANACARDIOIDES 41/2", (2) LEAFSCORCH,STRESSED
4"

CARROTWOOD THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED
TREE #TOTAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

23.5" PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED IN DUFF,

MINOR TWIG GIRDLER
T-7 CUPANIOPSIS (2) 8", 7", 20'-22' 30' C C STRESSED, MINOR WATER TRAP ANACARDIOIDES 5"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED
CARROTWOOD #TOTAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS
TREE 28" PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED

Page 1 of 10 ends

307

PROTECTED TREE EVALUATION FORM

OAK ROAD SOUTH
(47 MATURE NON-NATIVE TREES)
(SEE OAK TREE REPORT FOR TREES T-1, T-10, T-41, T-42, T-47 AND T-50) (#=TOTAL OF MULTI-TRUNK TREE QUALIFIES FOR 70% REDUCTION IN SIZE) TREE TREE NAME TRUNK CANOPY SPREAD HT:!: H'LTH AESTH NOTES & REMARKS NO. DIA(S)IN IN FEET
INCHES
CUPANIOPSIS 101/2" 18'-25' 28 C- C- STRESSED
T-7a ANACARDIOIDES

TOTAL THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED
CARROTWOOD 10.5 PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

TREE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-8 PHOENIX 26" 26'-32' 38' C+ C+ INTERTWINED IN T-9, STRESSED

CANARIENSIS

TOTAL THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED
CANARY ISLAND 26" PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PALM PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-9 FRAXINUS UHDEI 32" 40'-50' 50' C- C- CODOMINANT SCAFFOLDS, DEADWOOD,

EXPOSED ROOTS,,INCLUDED BARK,
EVERGREEN ASH TOTAL INTERTWINED IN T-8, STRESSED, WATER 32" TRAP?

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-11 EUCALYPTUS 17" 10'-12' 30' D D FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

SIDEROXYLON TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
REDIRONBARK 17"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-12 EUCALYPTUS (2) 11" 14'-18' 40' D D FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

SIDEROXYLON TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN
#TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
REDIRONBARK 22"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED

Page 2 of 10 ends

308

PROTECTED TREE EVALUATION FORM

OAK ROAD SOUTH
(47 MATURE NON-NATIVE TREES)
(SEE OAK TREE REPORT FORTREEST-1, T-10, T-41, T-42, T-47 ANDT-50) (#=TOTAL OF MULTI-TRUNK TREE QUALIFIES FOR 70% REDUCTION IN SIZE) TREE TREE NAME TRUNK CANOPY SPREAD HT! H'LTH AESTH NOTES & REMARKS NO. DIA(S) IN IN FEET
INCHES
T-13 EUCALYPTUS 24" 20'-30' 60' D D FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

SIDEROXYLON TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
REDIRONBARK 24"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-14 EUCALYPTUS 6", 5", (3) 8'-10' 26' D D FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES, SIDEROXYLON 2" TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
REDIRONBARK #TOTAL
17" THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-15 EUCALYPTUS 12" 10'-12' 32' D D FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

SIDEROXYLON TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
RED IRONBARK 12"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-16 EUCALYPTUS 17" 20'-30' 35' D D FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

POLYANTHEMOS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
SIL VER DOLLAR 17"

GUM THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-17 EUCALYPTUS 11" 20'-30' 48' D D FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

SIDEROXYLON TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
REDIRONBARK 17"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED

Page 3 of 10 ends

309

PROTECTED TREE EVALUATION FORM

OAK ROAD SOUTH
(47 MATURE NON-NATIVE TREES)
(SEE OAK TREE REPORT FORTREEST-1, T-10, T-41, T-42, T-47 ANDT-50) (#=TOTAL OF MULTI-TRUNK TREE QUALIFIES FOR 70% REDUCTION IN SIZE) TREE TREE NAME TRUNK CANOPY SPREAD HT.:!: H'LTH AESTH NOTES & REMARKS NO. DIA(S) IN IN FEET
INCHES
T-18 EUCALYPTUS 911, 611 16'-18' 28' D D FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

POL YANTHEMOS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN
#TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
SILVER DOLLAR 15"

GUM THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-19 EUCALYPTUS 16" 18'-26' 48' D D FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

SIDEROXYLON TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
REDIRONBARK 16"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-20 EUCALYPTUS 20" 18'-24' 50' D D FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

POLYANTHEMOS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
SILVER DOLLAR 20"

GUM THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-21 EUCALYPTUS 14" 20'-30' 50' D D FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

SIDEROXYLON TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
REDIRONBARK 14"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-22 EUCALYPTUS 18" 14'-18' 32' D D FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

POL YANTHEMOS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
SILVER DOLLAR 18"

GUM THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED

Page 4 of 10 ends

310

PROTECTED TREE EVALUATION FORM

OAK ROAD SOUTH
(47 MATURE NON-NATIVE TREES)
(SEE OAK TREE REPORT FOR TREES T-1, T-10, T-41, T-42, T-47 AND T-50) (#=TOTAL OF MULTI-TRUNK TREE QUALIFIES FOR 70% REDUCTION IN SIZE) TREE TREE NAME TRUNK CANOPY SPREAD HT:!: H'LTH AESTH NOTES & REMARKS NO. DIA(S) IN IN FEET
INCHES
T-22a EUCALYPTUS 20" 45' D D FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES, POL YANTHEMOS 20'-30' TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
SILVER DOLLAR 20"

GUM THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-22b EUCALYPTUS 91/2", 81/2" 20'-30' 40' D D FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

SIDEROXYLON TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN
#TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
REDIRONBARK 18"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-23 EUCALYPTUS 12", (2) 5", 20'-30' 20' F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES, GLOBULUS 3" TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
BLUE GUM #TOTAL
25" THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-24 EUCALYPTUS 12" 12'-14' 10' F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

GLOBULUS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED,
BLUE GUM 24" TOPPED

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-25 EUCALYPTUS 91/2" 8'-10' 10' F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

GLOBULUS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED,
BLUE GUM 25" TOPPED

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED

Page 5 of 10 ends

311

PROTECTED TREE EVALUATION FORM

OAK ROAD SOUTH
(47 MATURE NON-NATIVE TREES)
(SEE OAK TREE REPORT FOR TREES T-1, T-10, T-41, T-42, T-47 AND T-50) (#=TOTAL OF MULTI-TRUNK TREE QUALIFIES FOR 70% REDUCTION IN SIZE) TREE TREE NAME TRUNK CANOPY SPREAD HT:!: H'LTH AESTH NOTES & REMARKS NO. DIA(S)IN IN FEET
INCHES
T-26 EUCALYPTUS 18" 20'-30' 22' F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

GLOBULUS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
BLUE GUM 18"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-27 EUCALYPTUS 91/2" 18'-20' 18' F D FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

GLOBULUS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
BLUE GUM 9.5"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-28 EUCALYPTUS 18", 7" 25'-35' 28'D F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

GLOBULUS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN
#TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
BLUE GUM 25"
~HIS TREE IS WITI<IN THE PROPDSED

ROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

ROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-29 EUCALYPTUS 16" 25'-35' 35' F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

GLOBULUS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED

BLUE GUM TOTAL
16" THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-30 EUCALYPTUS 24", 16", 7" 30'-40' 60' F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

GLOBULUS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN
#TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
BLUE GUM 47"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED

Page 6 of 10 ends

312

PROTECTED TREE EVALUATION FORM

OAK ROAD SOUTH
(47 MATURE NON-NATIVE TREES)
(SEE OAK TREE REPORT FOR TREES T-1, T-10, T-41, T-42, T-47 AND T-50) (#=TOTAL OF MULTI-TRUNK TREE QUALIFIES FOR 70% REDUCTION IN SIZE) TREE TREE NAME TRUNK CANOPY SPREAD HT:!: H'LTH AESTH NOTES & REMARKS NO. DIA(S) IN IN FEET
INCHES
T-31 EUCALYPTUS 10" 25'-35' 35' F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

GLOBULUS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
BLUE GUM 10"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-32 EUCALYPTUS (2)20", 35'-45' 65' F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES, GLOBULUS (2) 5" TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
BLUE GUM #TOTAL
50" THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-33 EUCALYPTUS 18" 0'-35' 30' F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

GLOBULUS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
BLUE GUM 18"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-34 EUCALYPTUS 18" 0'-30' 60' F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

GLOBULUS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
BLUE GUM 18"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-35 EUCALYPTUS 14" 10'-18' 45' F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

GLOBULUS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
BLUE GUM 14"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED

Page 7 of 10 ends

313

PROTECTED TREE EVALUATION FORM

OAK ROAD SOUTH
(47 MATURE NON-NATIVE TREES)
(SEE OAK TREE REPORT FOR TREES T-1, T-10, T-41, T-42, T-47 AND T-50) (#=TOTAL OF MULTI-TRUNK TREE QUALIFIES FOR 70% REDUCTION IN SIZE) TREE TREE NAME TRUNK CANOPY SPREAD HT.:!: H'LTH AESTH NOTES & REMARKS NO. DIA(S) IN IN FEET
INCHES
T-36 EUCALYPTUS 28" 40'-50' 62' F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

GLOBULUS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
BLUE GUM 28"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-37 EUCALYPTUS 22", (2) 12" 30'-40' 50' F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

GLOBULUS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN
#TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
BLUE GUM 46"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-38 EUCALYPTUS 20", 16" 30'-40' 30' F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

GLOBULUS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN
#TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
BLUE GUM 36"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-39 EUCALYPTUS 30" 30'-40' 30' F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

GLOBULUS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
BLUE GUM 30" THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-40 EUCALYPTUS 24", 8" 40'-40' 30' F F FILL ON TRUNK, FALLEN BRANCHES,

GLOBULUS TWIGS AND LEAVES, INTERTWINED IN
#TOTAL ADJACENT GUM TREE, STRESSED
BLUE GUM 32"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED

Page 8 of 10 ends

314

PROTECTED TREE EVALUATION FORM

OAK ROAD SOUTH
(47 MATURE NON-NATIVE TREES)
(SEE OAK TREE REPORT FOR TREES T-1, T-10, T-41, T-42, T-47 AND T-50) (#=TOTAL OF MUL Tl-TRUNK TREE QUALIFIES FOR 70% REDUCTION IN SIZE) TREE TREE NAME TRUNK CANOPY SPREAD HT,:!: H'LTH AESTH NOTES & REMARKS NO. DIA(S)IN IN FEET
INCHES
T-43 SAMBUCUS 14", (8) 8", 30'-40' 30' F F BRANCHES ON GROUND, BROKEN MEXICANA (2) 6" BRANCH SCARS, CHLOROSIS,

CODOMINANT TRUNKS, MAJOR
MEXICAN #TOTAL DEADWOOD, EPICORMIC GROWTH,
ELDERBERRY 90" EXFOLIATION, HOLLOW TRUNK, LEAF

SCORCH, PRIOR PRUNING, STRESSED

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-44 SALIX LASIOLEPIS 16", 13" 0'=28' 14' F F BRANCHES ON GROUND, BROKEN

BRANCH SCARS, CHLOROSIS,
ARROYO WILLOW #TOTAL CODOMINANT TRUNKS, MAJOR
29" DEADWOOD, EPICORMIC GROWTH,

GROUND SQUIRREL HOLE AT BASE,
INCLUDED BARK, INTERTWINED IN T-45
AND T-47, HOLLOW TRUNK, ROT

OBSERVED,STRESSED

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-45 SALIX LASIOLEPIS 14", 13", 40'-60' 38' F F BRANCHES ON GROUND, BROKEN 11", 10", 5" BRANCH SCARS, CHLOROSIS,

ARROYO WILLOW CODOMINANT TRUNKS, CROSSING
#TOTAL BRANCHES, DEADWOOD, EPICORMIC
53" GROWTH, GROUND SQUIRREL HOLE AT

BASE, LEAF SCORCH, INTERTWINED INT-
46 AND T-47, BIRD'S NEST IN TREE, PRIOR

PRUNING, STRESSED, WATER TRAP

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED

Page 9 of 10 ends

315

PROTECTED TREE EVALUATION FORM

OAK ROAD SOUTH
(47 MATURE NON-NATIVE TREES)
(SEE OAK TREE REPORT FOR TREES T-1, T-10, T-41, T-42, T-47 AND T-50) (#=TOTAL OF MULTI-TRUNK TREE QUALIFIES FOR 70% REDUCTION IN SIZE) TREE TREE NAME TRUNK CANOPY SPREAD HT:t H'LTH AESTH NOTES & REMARKS NO. DIA(S) IN IN FEET
INCHES
T-46 SALIX LASIOLEPIS 35", 34", 40'-60' 45' F F BRANCHES ON GROUND, CODOMINANT (3) 1 O", 8" TRUNKS, MAJOR DEADWOOD, EPICORMIC

ARROYO WILLOW GROWTH, GROUND SQUIRREL HOLE AT
#TOTAL BASE, INCLUDED BARK, INTERTWINED IN
120" T-44, T-45 AND T-47, TRUNK FALLEN-TO-

GROUND, STRESSED

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-48 PUNCIA GRANATUM 13", 12", 8" 30'-50' 40' C- C- BRANCHES ON GROUND, CONJOINED

TRUNKS, DEADWOOD, INCLUDED BARK,
POMEGRANATE #TOTAL INTERTWINED IN T-49,PRIOR MAJOR
33" PRUNING, STRESSED

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE

PROPOSED PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS

AND IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-49 SAMBUCUS 30", (3) 12" 40'-50' 48' F F BRANCHES ON GROUND, CHLOROSIS,

MEXICANA CODOMINANT TRUNKS, MODERATE
#TOTAL DEADWOOD, GROUND SQUIRREL HOLE AT
MEXICAN 66" BASE, INCLUDED BARK, INTERTWINED IN
ELDERBERRY T-48, LEAF SCORCH, PRIOR MAJOR

PRUNING, STRESSED

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
T-50 WASHINGTONIA 18" 8'-8' 60' D+ D+ ADJACENT TO VCFC CHANNEL FENCE,

ROBUSTA DEADWOOD FRONDS, INTERTWINED IN

TOTAL TOBACCO PLANT, STRESSED
MEXICAN FAN PALM 18"

THIS TREE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND IS

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED

Page 10 of 10 ends

316

TREE PHOTO LOGS
317
PHOTO LOG #1
( 4 7 Non-Native Trees)
T-2 T-3
T-4 T-5
\
T-6 T-7
318
PHOTO LOG #2
( 4 7 Non-Native Trees)
T-7a T-8
T-9 T-11 thru T-17
T-18 thru T-22b T-23 thru T-28
319
PHOTO LOG #3
(47 Non-Native Trees)
T-29 thru T-36 T-37 thru T -40
T-43 T-44
T-45 - T-46
320
T-48
T-50
PHOTO LOG #4
(47 Non-Native Trees)
T-49
321

TREE REPLACEMENT

APPRAISAL SPREADSHEET
322

TOTAL VALUE OF TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL
TREE NO.APPRAISAL VALUEREMOVALMITIGATION VALUEIMPACT VALUE IN %SUB-TOTALCONITION RATING TRUNK AREA x $150.00TRUNK AREA (TA) IN SQ. IN.ADJUSTED RADIUS IN INCHES70% OF TRUNKS IN INCHESRADIUS IN INCHESDIAMETER(S) IN INCHESTREE NAMETREE NO.

T-2$1,909YES$1,909.32100.00%$1,909.3230%$6,364.3942.433.6757.3510.5PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUST-2 T-3$7,278YES$7,278100.00%$7,277.9230%$24,259.73161.737.17514.3520.5PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUST-3 T-4$6,032YES$6,032100.00%$6,031.8720%$30,159.36201.068.0016WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTAT-4 T-5$6,930YES$6,930100.00%$6,930.1120%$34,650.57231.008.57512.2517 1/2CUPANIOPSIS ANACARDIOIDEST-5 T-6$6,376YES$6,376100.00%$6,375.9420%$31,879.68212.538.22516.4523.5CUPANIOPSIS ANACARDIOIDEST-6 T-7$13,577YES$13,577100.00%$13,577.3730%$45,257.89301.729.819.628CUPANIOPSIS ANACARDIOIDEST-7 T-7a$2,475YES$2,475100.00%$2,475.4820%$12,377.4182.525.1310.25CUPANIOPSIS ANACARDIOIDEST-7a T-8$31,856YES$31,856100.00%$31,855.8240%$79,639.56530.9313.0026PHOENIX CANARIENSIST-8 T-9$62,094YES$62,094100.00%$62,094.1650%$124,188.31827.9216.2332.47FRAXINUS UHDEIT-9 T-11$3,393YES$3,393100.00%$3,392.9330%$12,377.4182.528.5017EUCALYPTUS SIDEROXYLONT-11 T-12$1,635YES$1,635100.00%$1,634.945%$18,668.88124.4610.7815.422EUCALYPTUS SIDEROXYLONT-12 T-13$3,393YES$3,393100.00%$3,392.935%$67,858.56452.3912.0024EUCALYPTUS SIDEROXYLONT-13 T-14$1,635YES$1,635100.00%$1,634.945%$32,698.83$217.998.3311.917EUCALYPTUS POLYANTHEMOST-14 T-15$848YES$848100.00%$848.235%$16,964.64113.106.0012EUCALYPTUS SIDEROXYL0NT-15 T-16$1,702YES$1,702100.00%$1,702.355%$34,047.09226.988.5017EUCALYPTUS SIDEROXYLONT-16 T-17$713YES$713100.00%$712.755%$14,255.0195.035.5011EUCALYPTUS POLYANTHEMOST-17 T-18$4YES$4100.00%$4.335%$86.5986.595.2510.515EUCALYPTUS POLYANTHEMOST-18 T-19$1,508YES$1,508100.00%$1,507.975%$30,159.36201.068.0016EUCALYPTUS SIDEROXYLONT-19 T-20$2,356YES$2,356100.00%$2,356.205%$47,124.00314.1610.0020EUCALYPTUS SIDEROXYLONT-20 T-21$1,155YES$1,155100.00%$1,154.545%$23,090.76153.947.0014EUCALYPTUS SIDEROXYL0NT-21 T-22$1,909YES$1,909100.00%$1,908.525%$38,170.44254.479.0018EUCALYPTUS POLYANTHEMOST-22 T-22a$2,356YES$2,356100.00%$2,356.205%$47,124.00314.1610.0020EUCALYPTUS SIDEROXYL0NT-22a T22-b$935YES$935100.00%$935.185%$18,703.52124.696.318EUCALYPTUS POLYANTHEMOST22-b T-23$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$35,357.73235.728.7517.525EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-23 T-24$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$8,312.6755.424.28.46.0012EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-24 T-25$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$10,632.3570.884.759.5EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-25 T-26$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$38,170.44$254.479.0018EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-26 T-27$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$10,632.3570.884.759.5EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-27 T-28$0YES$00.00%$0.000%$36,079.31240.538.7517.525EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-28 T-29$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$30,159.36201.068.0016EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-29 T-30$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$127,518.72850.1216.4532.947EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-30 T-31$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$11,781.0078.545.0010EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-31 T-32$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$280,387.801869.2517.53550EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-32 T-33$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$38,170.44254.479.0018EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-33 T-34$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$38,170.44254.479.0018EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-34 T-35$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$23,090.76153.947.0014EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-35 T-36$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$92,363.04615.7514.0028EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-36 T-37$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$122,150.12814.3316.132.246EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-37 T-38$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$74,814.06498.7612.625.236EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-38 T-39$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$106,029.00706.8615.0030EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-39 T-40$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$59,112.35394.0811.222.432EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUST-40 T-43$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$467,587.893117.2531.56390SAMBUCUS MEXICANAT-43 T-44$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$48,548.32323.6610.1520.329SAMBUCUS MEXICANAT-44 T-45$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$101,830.25678.8714.729.442SALIX LASIOLEPIST-45 T-46$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$831,267.365541.784284120SALIX LASIOLEPIST-46 T-48$18,859YES$18,859100.00%$18,859.3830%$62,864.59419.1011.5523.133PUNICA GRANATUMT-48 T-49$0YES$0100.00%$0.000%$251,458.381676.3923.146.266SAMBUCUS MEXICANAT-49 T-50$0NO$00.00%$3,817.0410%$38,170.44254.479.0018WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTAT-50 $180,929

OAK ROAD SOUTH - TREE REPLACEMENT SPREADSHEET
323

TREE MAP
324
----~--··-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. [XXXXX] COCHRAN STREET
t

FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
--- FD. VENTURA COUNTY S.S.M. IN WELL PER V.C.F.B. 1714-M PG 15. IN THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY, COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (
�
\ "'
0 "'"'
D. G S&W STAMPED
"LS 8141" MID-LOT L
--' I -1- ..
;;5�1-
1 0 11
� '
-:_- C 1-··
\__i C , __ =i,._,4""'"'�ilW ----------- ---------------- :,:._ �
�===------
=r=
=-----------====�1�==�==r --=-- =-=- =-=-=-= =-= - =-= =-=-==-= =-= =-= =-- ----=-.1--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- w �---
l' �,�,,,,�,1"'::::,�:�1 ( n �t == �E> c�ll ��'o'L��::::> z
- ·2��.£_CJ:: _--
1ie
1--UND,VElOPE
w >
<(
lij�
e le
en w
...J
w
C,
z
<(
en I
co
"?
� "'..:t-(.0 R
�
N CO "' 3: "'
"',,
) .
�--------�-------------------,(� � I
D
,,t-::t.:
�
'
D c,�
11111 IJJ
1-
1-
1-
1-
1-
1-
i-
0 e
�
A '&iii
PTR-2 PARCEL 1
-� �-��-----
.
�'\),'\:\)
L -==--=::_ - - - - __;
•T4
I
• • •
•._�·••kn
I �117 f-1 I_ I -17-111-111'11 I
'
.-------, I "
DL� ��u�-��13.. iltF!M 11 c
� '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, N\i',
11\ I I I lwfl I I I 1a��i4�-
t,(�11\'RO
EST�
OH=E
�(--...: 1-1 □
--, \' "\
::SI
._I •
=1
�I
t,!. I
I 25'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
L _ _J
1 ' •J

TOTI L LAND AREA I, ,
G OSS: 5.721 AC! ' I.
1 ®J,.J� -�
NET: 5.331 AC 'i...r, J•/1
----
--
---
I 1-lTil-1-l l I I 12lJ0't�'IE 17
-y, ,,....r ) } ")
�,,, "'¾.
1l
( ��"cs->J� fil
(. \ �
ffi'\s:" '' ' " -
0 I I
� ..
,·
' '
1 -
�
R ,·
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' \
CHICA(t)J'[l'lV�"'t-J'V� LLC
,'1AP�
�-\ tT.�!Q j y �,
'-.._� .. ,
-�-
I . I
---A-;;---- // I - I
(
/
-: i;;;,.:�� Fr"'4�.j;;i:- ,.,.. /
11 I

UTH LLC
-'
1:-7
:x:
1111 rl 1-1
'
D.1<,-1/2" IP & TAcf"tTAMPED "LS 6� .1 '_PER 44 PM 8 ��"'"-"''-'-'"�'01 i
I
I
I
I
I
I tS.�»" '\,\.\.' '-\\'\'>'L"'-i'':: §lj t\\\\'r�'->> ''' '
0 �_J
DEVilOP1D R,SltENTIAL PROPERTY �
4n ' I
I /1
tt=!I�
,\\-rJ
k� �
I
.J � -
�
� i':'i
g
a!
I
LOS ANGEL£$ AV£

KATHERINE RD
l
¾�

VICINITY MAP
N.T.S
CIVIL ENGINEER:

C&V CONSUL TING, INC.
9830 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92618
PHONE: (949} 445-1833
SUBDIVIDER:

OAK ROAD SOUTH OWNERS LLC
C/0 SENRTY PROPERTY GROUP, INC.
530 TECHNOLOGY DRIVf., SUITE 100
IRVINE, CA 92618
(949) 789-4555
CONTACT: SALVATORE PROl/f.NZA, PARTNER
SITE ADDRESS:
1761, 1801 & 1807 OAK ROAD
SIMI VALLEY, CA 9306 3
LAND USE SUMMARY:

GROSS AREA: 5.721 ACRES
NET AREA: 5.331 ACRES
TOTAL PROPOSED LOTS: 1 (NUMBERED)
LOT 1 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
TOTAL DWELLING UNITS: 60

RESIDENTIAL UNITS
LEGEND:
---It· CENTERUNE

SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY

EASEMENT
EX. LOT LINE
EX. R/W
SHEET_ INDEX:

SHEET NO.

SHEET 1
SHEET 2
SHEET 3
SHEET 4
SHEET 5
SHEET 6
SHEET 7
TENTA Til/f. lRACT MAP

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN

PRELIMINARY SECTIONS

PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN

PRELIMINARY FIRE ACCESS &

HYDRANT LOCATION PLAN
�
;
I./ - - N00"20'05"E 1395.52'
� - -�- - =1-=--� - ---� - -_-_.=. - ---=-- ----� - ---� - -=---� - ---� - ---=-- - ----= - ----= It ----= - ----= - ---=-- - ----= - - - - - - - - - - - - - --· --- -� IL - --- -......1 --· - - - -·- � 1.97'
�� y O s E M IT E AV E. N00"24'42"E 1395.52' �----
�
co
....
<D -' ,,, \,...:\\
BASIS OF BEARINGS;
FD. VENTURA COUNTY S.S.M.

IN WELL PER 40 RS 37/41

THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE BEARING
NORTH 72'43'17" WEST BETWEEN CALIFORNIA SPATIAL

REFERENCE CENTER CONTINUOUSLY OPERATING REFERENCE
STATIONS "TOST" AND "LAPC".

FLOOD NOTE;
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN "ZONE x• (AN AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD) AND "ZONE AE" (REGULATORY FLOODWAY CHANNEL) PER FEMA FlRM MAP NO. 06111 C0868E, PANEL NO. 868 OF 1275 EFFECTIVE 1/20/2010.

PAIUM STATEMENT;

ALL COORDINATES SHOWN HEREON ARE GRID VALUES BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, CCS83, ZONE Ill, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983, 2010.00 EPOCH, NAD83(2011), IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTIONS 8801-8819. A GENERALIZED COMBINATION SCALE FACTOR OF 0.99991359 WAS USED FOR THIS PROJECT AT NORTHING 1921739.67 EASTING 6357282.99 AT AN ORTHOMETRIC ELEVATION OF 1019.19' {NGVD29). ALL DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND. TO OBTAIN GRID DISTANCES, MULTIPLY GROUND DISTANCES BY THE COMBINATION SCALE FACTOR.

BENCHMARK STATEMENT;
COUNTY OF VENTURA BENCHMARK NO. "68-1-RS"
ELEV: 1013.079 FEET (NGVD 29 1982 ADJ.)
DESCRIBED AS: IN THE CITY OF SIMI, AT THE INTERSECTION OF LOS

ANGELES AVENUE AT YOSEMITE AVENUE, IN THE SOUTHWEST CONCRETE CURB RETURN, A 2-INCH BRASS DISK IN TOP OF CONCRETE CURB, IN FRONT OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT STANDARD.

PUBLIC UTILITIES SERVICES:
lELEPHONE:

AT&T
2250 WARD A VE.

SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065
PH: (805) 583-8529
ELECIBIC:

SO. CALIFORNIA EDISON
3589 FOOTHILL DR.

THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91361
PH: (805} 655-4555
CABLE TY:

SPECTRUM
1555 SIMI TOWN CENTER WAY
SUllE B1-125
SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065
PH: (888) 406 -7063
WEE;
GOLDEN STA TE WATER CO.
4680 LOS ANGELES A Vf., SUITE H
SIMI VALLEY, CA 93063
PH: (805) 520-2394
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT:

THE SURVEY ON WHICH THIS VESTING TENTATIVE

MAP IS BASED WAS DONE BY ME, OR UNDER
MY DIRECTION. FlELDWORK WAS COMPLETED ON
AUG UST 11,2023.

DANE P. MCDOUGALL, L.S. 9297
GAS:

SO. CAUFORNIA GAS CO.
977 CHAMBERS LANE
SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065
PH: (818} 262-4835
�

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
600 W. LOS ANGELES A VE.

SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065
PH:
(805) 583-6 440
ENGINEER'S STATEMENT:

THIS VESTING TENTATIVE MAP WAS PREPARED BY
ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION ON MARCH 15,
2024.

RYAN J. BITTNER, R.C.E. 68167
ZONING/ GENERAL PLAN:'
EXISTING ZONING: RESIDENTIAL MODERATE DENSITY (RMOD)/

RESIDENTIAL MEDIAN DENSITY (RM)
PROPOSED ZONING: RESIDENTIAL MODERATE DENSITY (RMOD)
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY/

RESIDENTIAL MODERATE DENSITY
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL MODERATE DENSITY LEGAL DESCRIPTIONL EASEMENTS:

SEE SHEET 2 OF 7.

VESTED OWNER:

PTR-1;

ROBIN GENCHEL, TRUSTEE OF THE EXEMPTION TRUST ESTABLISHED UNDER THE CANNON TRUST DATED JUNE 23, 1990, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/4 INTEREST,

ROBIN GENCHEL, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE FLORENCE AXELROD LMNG TRUST DATED MARCH 17, 1990, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/4 INTEREST AND DAVID B.

BAUM, A SINGLE MAN, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1 /2 INTEREST, ALL AS TENANTS IN COMMON, SUBJECT TO ITEM NO. 11 AND 12
PIB-2:

CRP MANAGEMENT, INC.

PTR-3:

BRADLY BARR COX AND ETELKA E. COX, TRUSTEES OF THE BRADLY AND ETELKA COX FAMILY TRUST, DATED: 9/28/00, SUBJECT TO ITEM NO. 12 '
_,..-,·
,_
1" = 50'
�
0 25 50 100
...---- -..oTECTED ZOHF'
:.---- DRIPUNE
"�
---� ) � Tll1MUUlOPUltN
__!___ I 'f1'1EE" �
'-�......
.' .,,.�
..
---·---

OAK TREE LEGEND
�
SVP-2024-0001 [GPA-2024-0001] �

TREE MAP
Z-S-2024-0003 t PD-S-2024-0005 f TT-2024-0004 !ii \ \
� PREPARED BY: I PREPARED FOR: I CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
PROJECT NO.
f;
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT WDLA-002 i!
C&.V�
913::,0 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE
IRVINE. CALlf'ORNIA 92618
1949) 9 I &3800
,.g CONSULTING, INC. [email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING & SURVEYING WWW.CVO-INC.NET
OAK ROAD SOUTH OWNERS U.C
C/0 SENTRY GROUP, INC.
530 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, SUITE 100
IRVINE, CA 92618
(949) 789-4555
I �� • ••
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. [XXXXX] '

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP

I OAK ROAD
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 93063
SHEET
OF
1 7
8§"' m N
Q.N
' "'
zl'" ��
325

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
326
327

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
328
Initial S
tudy
Oak Road South
Project
City of Simi Valley, California
Prepared for City of Simi Valley
Planning Division
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Contact: Naren Gunasekera
[email protected]
Prepar e
d by Psomas
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 300
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Contact: Jennifer Marks
(714) 481-8041
April 2026
EXHIBIT 4
329
330
Table of Contents

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT i
INI

TIAL STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sect
ion Page

1.0 Project Information ............................................................................................................. 1-1

2.0 Environmental Checklist ................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources ................................................................................... 2-5

2.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 2-7

2.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 2-25

2.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 2-33

2.6 Energy ....................................................................................................................................... 2-37

2.7 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................. 2-41

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................. 2-48

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................ 2-55

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 2-59

2.11 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 2-65

2.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................... 2-67

2.13 Noise .......................................................................................................................................... 2-68

2.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 2-78

2.15 Public Services ....................................................................................................................... 2-80

2.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 2-84

2.17 Transportation ...................................................................................................................... 2-86

2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 2-89

2.19 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................... 2-93

2.20 Wildfire ..................................................................................................................................... 2-98

2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance .......................................................................... 2-100

3.0 References .............................................................................................................................. 3-1

331
Table of Contents

ii OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
TABLES

Tabl
e Page

1 Residential High Density Zoning District Development Standards and Project Statistics ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-5 2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................ 2-10 3 South Central Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ................................................................. 2-11 4 Air Quality Levels Measured at the Simi Valley – Cochran Street Monitoring Station ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-14 5 Regional Construction Emissions ................................................................................................ 2-17 6 Regional Operational Emissions .................................................................................................. 2-18 7 Energy Use During Project Construction .................................................................................. 2-38 8 Energy Use During Project Operations...................................................................................... 2-39 9 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................. 2-51 10 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................... 2-51 11 Project Consistency with City of Simi Valley Climate Action Plan ................................. 2-53 12 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results (dBA) – L-1 1 ...................................................... 2-70 13 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results (dBA) – L-21 ...................................................... 2-70 14 Project Construction Noise Levels – At 162 Feet .................................................................. 2-71 15 Stationary Noise Source Impacts – “Without Wall” Conditions ...................................... 2-73 16 Stationary Noise Source Impacts – “With Wall” Conditions ............................................ 2-73 17 Roadway Noise Impacts 1, 2 .............................................................................................................. 2-74 18 Typical Construction Vibration Levels ...................................................................................... 2-75 19 Construction Vibration Impact Analysis ................................................................................... 2-76

EXHIBITS

Exhibit Follows Page

1 Regional Location and Local Vicinity ............................................................................................ 1-2 2 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................................................................. 1-2 3 Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 4 Conceptual Landscape Plan ............................................................................................................... 1-3

332
Table of Contents
OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT iii
IN

ITIAL STUDY

APPENDICES
Pleas
e contact the Environmental Services Department for a copy of the appendices:

Planning Division
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
[email protected]
(805) 583-6769
Appendix
A-1 A i
r Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
A-2 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Energy, and Noise Supplemental Memorandum B-1 Biological Site Assessment
B-2 Mature Non-Native Tree Report
B-3 Native Oak Tree Report
C Phase I Cultural Resource Report
D Geotechnical Investigations
E Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
F Preliminary Drainage Report
G Noise Impact Study
333
Table of Contents

iv OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
This page intentionally left blank

334

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 1-1

INITIAL STUDY

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title: Oak Road South Project (GPA-2024-0001/ Z-S-2025-0005/Z-S-2024-0003/
PD-S-2024-0005/TT-2024-0004/
AHA-2024-0003)

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, California 93063

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Naren Gunasekera
Principal Planner
805.583.6863

4. Project Location: 1807, 1801, and 1761 Oak Road
Simi Valley, California 93063

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Sentry Property Group, LLC Attn: Salvatore Provenza
530 Technology Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92618

6. Existing General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (3.6-5.0 du/ac 1), Mode
rate Density Residential (5.1-10 du/ac)
Proposed General Plan Designation: High Density Residential (10.1-20 du/ac)

7. Existing Zoning: Residential Medium Density,
Residential Moderate Density
Proposed Zoning: Residential High Density

8. Description of the Project:

Project Overview
The Oak Road South Project (Project) proposes the development of a 60-unit residential subdivision located at 1807, 1801, and 1761 Oak Road in the City of Simi Valley (City), Ventura County, California (Exhibit 1, Regional Location and Local Vicinity). The Project site encompasses a total of approximately 5.72 acres across four parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APNs] 637-0-140-450, -460, -155, and -325) within a predominantly residential area of the City. The site is bordered by a vacant commercial lot 2 to the north, mobile home

1 du/ac: dwelling units per acre
2 This lot is currently planned for the future development of a 70-unit multi-family condominium townhouse complex, approved by the City Octo
ber 2024 (https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/303788-2/attachment/itUj9Oy1jl-AzNUQtixMNu_-Mwq6kNRFDoJae0iZrU1d- zbNvqTbOtjIjo5AZzfIjPhjjNlNsfkB3eVp0).
335
Introduction

1-2 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
residences to the east, single-family residences to the south, and multi-family apartments to the
west (Exhibit 2, Aerial Photograph).

The Arroyo Simi Flood Control Channel, owned and maintained by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD), traverses the site in an east-west direction and separates the three northern parcels (APNs 637-0-140-450, -460, and -155) from the southern parcel (APN 637-0-140-155).

Regional access to the Project area is provided by State Route (SR) 118, located approximately 0.8 mile to the north. Local access is provided via East Los Angeles Avenue approximately 0.1 mile north of the site, through Oak Road, which is a private roadway that extends north-south along the eastern boundary of the site.

The Project applicant, Oak Road South Owners LLC, is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) to allow for the development of the proposed residential uses. Although the total Project site consists of approximately 5.72 acres, physical development would occur only within an approximately 4.42-acre portion of the site on APNs 637-0-140-450, -460, and -155. The remaining parcel, APN 637-0-140-325, encompassing approximately 1.30 acres located south of the Arroyo Simi Channel, would not be developed as part of the Project but would be included in the proposed GPA and ZC as part of the overall Project site.

Project Components
Residential Development
The Project would construct 60 two-story, single-family residences on approximately

4.42 acres within APNs 637-0-140-450, -460, and -155 (Exhibit 3, Site Plan). The 60 single- family units would consist of 57 three- and four-bedroom detached single-family units, ranging in size from 1,693 square feet (sf) to 2,020 sf, and 3 one-bedroom, 720 sf, attached very low-income affordable single-family units. All residential structures would be two stories in height and would be constructed to a maximum height of 27 feet 6 inches. The Project has a proposed net residential density of 13.58 dwelling units per acres (du/acre).

A total of 137 parking spaces would be provided to accommodate the proposed development, including 114 detached garage spaces serving the 57 detached residences, 3 attached garage spaces serving the 3 very low-income affordable residences, and 20 open guest spaces distributed throughout the site. Bicycle parking would be accommodated through the provision of eight short-term bicycle parking spaces located within the two community open space areas.

Architectural Design and Elevations
The architectural design of the residences would incorporate neutral tones along the ext
erior of the residences, which would primarily utilize stucco, wood, and concrete, as well as metal for garage doors and other building accents. Concrete roof tiles and other decorative 336
Introduction
OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 1-3
INI

TIAL STUDY
ornaments are also incorporated into building design to complete the architectural theme.

The r
esidences would be constructed to a maximum height of 27 feet 6 inches.

Additionally, a 6-foot concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall with a 2-inch CMU cap would be installed along the perimeter of the site, and a 5-foot 6-inch stucco CMU wall or vinyl fence would be installed around the yards of each proposed residence.

Open Space and Landscaping
The Project includes both private and common open space areas to accommodate future resi
dents. Approximately 34,235 sf of private open space would be provided in the form of porches and private rear yards, averaging approximately 571 sf per unit. Approximately 17,807 sf of common open space would be provided on the site, consisting of two community open space areas, which would provide an additional average of 297 sf of open space per unit. The primary community open space area, located central to the site, would include a shade structure, BBQ island with picnic table and bench seating, play amenities, and turf grass areas suitable for small social gatherings. The secondary community open space area, located on the southern portion of the site, would include decomposed granite pathways, seating beneath tree canopies, and a small turf area intended as a dog relief area. The Project would include approximately 67,868 sf of landscaped areas throughout the site. Landscaping materials used would consist of a variety of trees, shrubs, vines, and groundcovers, consistent with City standards and Landscape Design Guidelines. Refer to Exhibit 4, Conceptual Landscape Plan.

The Project would require the removal and replacement of 47 mature non-native trees and 5 mature oak trees, which would be conducted in accordance with all City standards and permit requirements, as outlined in the Mature Non-Native Tree Report and the Oak Tree Report (Campbell 2025a and Campbell 2025b), included in Appendix B. Water conservation measures have been incorporated into the Project’s overall planting plan, including the use of low-water demand planting materials and incorporation of low-water usage principles pursuant to City Standards and Landscape Manual, and local Assembly Bill (AB) 1881 Water Rules & Regulations. The Project’s landscaping plan has been prepared in compliance with the City of Simi Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinances.

Under proposed conditions, the Project site would contain approximately 2.87 acres (124,887 sf) of impervious surfaces representing 64.1 percent total impervious coverage, and approximately 1.55 acres (67,868 sf) of pervious surfaces, representing 35.27 percent total pervious coverage.

Circulation and Utility Infrastructure Improvements
The Project would construct new on-site private streets (Private Streets A, B, C, D, and E) and improve
the existing private Oak Road within the site boundaries to provide vehicular access to and circulation within the Project site. Improvements to the existing private Oak Road would include construction of an entrance to the Project site and paving of the roadway.

Existing overhead utilities along Oak Road would be relocated underground as part of these 337
Introduction

1-4 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
improvements. A four-foot-wide concrete pedestrian walkway would be installed along the priv
ate streets to provide on-site pedestrian connectivity throughout the neighborhood and amenities.

A dedicated fire access lane easement would be provided along all private streets in compliance with Ventura County Fire Department standards and requirements to ensure emergency access to and from the site would be maintained at all times. Additionally, the Project would dedicate a 10-foot-wide easement along the southern side of the Arroyo Simi Channel within APN 637-0-140-325 to the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District for future pedestrian ingress and egress.

The Project would require connection to existing utility infrastructure currently in place in the vicinity of the Project site and installation of new utility infrastructure, including domestic water lines, sanitary sewer lines, gas lines, storm drain infrastructure, and electric service infrastructure. Utility service capacity currently in place in the site vicinity is anticipated to be sufficient to meet increased utility demands resulting from construction of the Project.

Proposed General Plan and Zoning Designations
The Project site is currently zoned Residential Moderate Density and Residential Medium Density and has a land use designation of Moderate Density Residential and Medium Density Residential under the City’s General Plan. To accommodate the proposed development, the Project would require a GPA to redesignate the site as High Density Residential and a ZC to rezone the site as Residential High Density.

Upon approval of the requested GPA and ZC, the proposed residential uses and density would be permitted on the site and would comply with the applicable Residential High Density development standards and City land use regulations, as summarized in Table 1. 338
Introduction

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 1-5

INITIAL STUDY
TABLE 1
RES

IDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONING DISTRICT

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PROJECT STATISTICS
Description
Required:

Residential High Density
Provided:

Proposed Project
Density (Residential Uses) 20 du/ac (maximum) 13.58 du/ac* Minimum Lot Area 5,000 sf 192,405 sf (4.42 ac)
Minimum Lot Width 40 feet 757 feet 7 inches
Minimum Dwelling Size NA for this Zone 3 bedroom: 1,766 sf (avg.) Maximum Building Height 3 stories/40 feet 2 stories / 27 feet 6 inches Front Yard Setback
20 feet (min)
Additional 1 feet/1 feet of
building height above 15 feet
41 feet 3 inches
Street Side Setback 10 feet (min) 10 feet
Interior Side Setback 15 feet 10 feet**
Rear Yard Setback 20 feet (min) 10 feet**
Maximum Lot Coverage NA for this Zone 38.2 percent*
du/ac: dwelling units/acre; sf: square feet; NA: Not Applicable; ac: acres; avg.: average * Based on Lot 1
** A waiver is being requested as part of this Project.

Source: SVMC Section 09.24.050

Construction Phasing
Project construction would occur in two phases. Phase 1 would include construction of 37 detached single-family residences, the 3-unit very low-income affordable triplex, the primary community open space area, and associated improvements including private streets and utility connections. Phase 2 would include construction of the remaining 20 detached single-family residences, the secondary community open space area, and remaining on-site utility connections.

Project grading would retain the existing relatively flat topography of the site. Grading activities would include an estimated 7,228 cubic yards of cut and 3,231 cubic yards of fill.

Construction activities would occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, consistent with the City’s Municipal Code and permitted hours of construction. Construction would occur in two phases and include demolition, site preparation, grading/excavation, building construction, paving, and architectural coating.

Construction of the proposed Project would use standard construction equipment, including an excavator, bulldozer, bobcat, dump truck, compactor, water truck, and concrete truck for preparing the site. No pile driving would be required.
339
Introduction

1-6 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
Discretionary Actions by the City
Implementation of the Project would require the following discretionary approvals by the City of Simi Valley:
• Approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA-2024-0001);
• Approval of Zone Change (Z-S-2025-0005, Z-S-2024-0003); • Approval of Planned Development Permit (PD-S-2024-0005); • Approval of Tentative Tract Map (TT-2024-0004); and
• Approval of Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA-2024-0003) Project Design Features
The following Project Design Features (PDFs) have been incorporated into the Project and are considered part of the Project’s design and operational commitments.

Air Quality
PDF AQ-1 The
Project will implement avoidance features to reduce ozone precursor emissions during construction, as recommended by the VCAPCD. These features include, but are not limited to:

1. Minimize equipment idling time to five (5) minutes or less.

2. Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers’ specifications.

3. Lengthen the construction period during smog season (May through October), to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.

4. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric, if feasible.

PDF AQ-2 The Project will follow the VCAPCD rules and requirements for fugitive dust control, which include, but are not limited to the following:

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 1-7

INITIAL STUDY
ii. Track-Out Prevention: Check and clean the undercarriage and wh
eels on all vehicles before leaving unpaved surface or install a properly functioning and well-maintained track-out control device(s) that prevents track-out of soil onto paved public roads.
iii. Track-Out Removal: Remove track-out from pavement as soon as possible but no later than one hour after it has been deposited on the paved road. If a street sweeper is used to remove any track-out, only PM 10-efficient street sweepers certified to meet SCAQ
MD Rule 1186 requirements shall be used. The make and
model information and certification documentation of any sweeper used shall be made available upon request.

2. Notwithstanding the preceding, all track-out shall be removed at the conclusion of each workday or evening shift subject to the same condition regarding PM 10 efficient street sweepers as outlined above.

The
use of blowers for removal of track-out is expressly prohibited under any circumstances.

3. The Project shall not engage in earth-moving activities in a manner that creates visible dust emissions over 100 feet in length.

4. The Project shall not conduct an active operation with a monthly import or export of 2,150 cubic yards or more of bulk material without utilizing at least one of the following measures at each vehicle egress from the site to a public paved road:
i. Install a pad consisting of washed gravel (minimum size: one inch) maintained in a clean condition to a depth of at least six inches and extending at least 30 feet wide and at least 50 feet long.
ii. Pave the surface at least 100 feet long and at least 20 feet wide. iii. Utilize a wheel shaker/wheel spreading device, also known as a rumble grate, consisting of raised dividers (rails, pipe, or grates) at least 24 feet long and sufficient width to allow all wheels of vehicle traffic to travel over grate to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site. iv. Install and utilize a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site.
v. Any other measure or device that prevents track-out onto public paved roads.
341
Introduction

1-8 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY

5. The Project shall not load or allow the loading of bulk materials or soil ont
o outbound trucks unless at least one of the following dust prevention techniques is utilized:
i. Use properly secured tarps or cargo covering that covers the entire surface area of the load or use a container-type enclosure. ii. Maintain a minimum of six inches of freeboard below the rim of the truck bed where the load touches the sides of the cargo area and ensure that the peak of the load does not extend above any part of the upper edge of the cargo area.
iii. Water or otherwise treat the bulk material to minimize loss of material to wind or spillage.
iv. Other effective dust prevention control measures.

6. The Project will not conduct any construction activity or any earthmoving activity on a public unpaved road that causes:
i. Visible emissions of 20 percent opacity or greater during each observation and the total duration of such observation (not necessarily consecutive) is a cumulative 3 minutes or more in one hour. Only opacity readings from a single source will be included in the cumulative total used to determine compliance; or
ii. A visible dust plume that exceeds 100 feet in length.

PDF AQ-3 All diesel construction equipment should have Tier 4 low emission “clean diesel” engines (OEM or retrofit) that include diesel oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate filters that meet the latest CARB best available control technology.

PDF AQ-4 Minimize the simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units, to the maximum extent feasible.

PDF AQ-5 Establish an electricity supply to the construction site and use electric- powered equipment instead of diesel-powered equipment or generators, where feasible.

PDF AQ-6 Utilize zero VOC and low VOC paints and solvents, where feasible. 342
Introduction

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 1-9

INITIAL STUDY
Cultural Resources
PDF CUL-1 Cultural Resources Construction Protocol. Ba s ed on the results of the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, no historical or unique archaeological resources were identified within the Project area, and impacts to cultural resources are not anticipated. As a precautionary measure and to ensure regulatory compliance in the event of an unanticipated discovery, the following construction procedures will be implemented:
• An archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards shall conduct periodic spot-check visits during initial grading and utility trenching activities. Visits would occur upon initiation of grading and trenching phases to review the site conditions and approximately monthly thereafter, or as defined during the initial visit. The purpose of these visits is to provide professional oversight in the unlikely event that previously unidentified cultural materials are encountered. • Full-time monitoring is not proposed and would only occur if warranted by an unanticipated discovery and subject to coordination with and approval by the City.
• If potential cultural materials are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within approximately 30 feet of the find will be temporarily halted, and a qualified archaeologist will evaluate the discovery to determine its significance and recommend appropriate next steps consistent with applicable laws and regulations. Isolated artifacts recovered from previously disturbed soils that do not warrant additional evaluation may be documented and collected without requiring a construction halt. All observations, whether or not they result in further evaluation, will be documented in field notes.
• If no discoveries occur, no additional reporting beyond standard documentation would be required. In the event that materials requiring further evaluation are identified, documentation will be prepared summarizing the findings and any actions taken, as requested by the City.

Any materials determined to have interpretive or research value may be analyzed and curated at an appropriate repository, or otherwise managed in accordance with applicable regulations and in coordination with the City.

343
Introduction

1-10 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
Noise
PDF NOI-1 All H VAC equipment will be shielded from the line of sight of adjacent properties behind a property line wall, enclosure, and/or setback a sufficient distance to ensure noise levels do not exceed the City’s General Plan stationary noise level standards.

PDF NOI-2 As part of the final design process, the Project applicant will retain a qualified acoustical consultant to prepare an updated noise review of the selected HVAC equipment and placement to confirm that the design is consistent with the City’s General Plan stationary noise standards.

PDF NOI-3 A “windows closed” condition is expected to be required for all residential units facing Oak Road in order to meet the interior noise standard. See Section

6.3.2, Table 16, for details regarding window STC requirements.

PDF NOI-4 For proper acoustical performance, all exterior windows, doors, and sliding glass doors will have a positive seal and leaks/cracks must be kept to a minimum. Attic vents and opening should be oriented away from the adjacent roadways.

PDF NOI-5 Provide public notifications and signage in readily visible locations along the perimeter of construction sites that indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number where neighbors can enquire about the construction process and register complaints to a designated construction noise disturbance coordinator.

PDF NOI-6 All construction equipment will be equipped with mufflers and other suitable noise attenuation devices (e.g., engine shields).

PDF NOI-7 Establish an electric connection to the site before the start of Project construction to avoid the use of diesel and gas powered generators to the extent feasible.

PDF NOI-8 Locate staging area, generators, and stationary construction equipment as far from the adjacent residential homes as feasible.

PDF NOI-9 Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, will be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes.

344
Introduction

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 1-1 1

INITIAL STUDY
Tribal Cultural Resources
PDF TCR-1 T h e Project applicant shall retain a professional Tribal Monitor procured by the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to spot-check all ground-disturbing activities occurring within the first five feet of native soil.

Ground-disturbing activities include, but are not limited to: excavating, digging, trenching, plowing, drilling, tunneling, quarrying, grading, leveling, clearing, driving posts, auguring, blasting, or similar activities.

Spot-checking shall occur once weekly for the duration of these activities.

Tribal Monitoring Services shall continue until the Project applicant provides written confirmation that all scheduled activities requiring Tribal Monitoring are complete. If monitoring must pause and resume due to construction scheduling, the project applicant shall submit written confirmation to the Tribe following completion of each set of monitored activities, and shall provide 5 days’ written notice prior to the start of the next set of activities.

If cultural resources are encountered, the Tribal Monitor is authorized to request that ground-disturbing activities cease within 60 feet of the discovery.

A qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s standards, retained by the project applicant, shall assess the find alongside the Tribal Monitor.

If the find is determined to be significant under CEQA (as amended 2015), the project applicant shall retain a professional Tribal Monitor procured by the FTBMI to observe all remaining ground-disturbing activities, including clearing, grading, excavating, trenching, drilling, tunneling, quarrying, leveling, driving posts, auguring, blasting, stripping topsoil, or similar activity, in addition to any archaeological work.

PDF TCR-2 The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of any potential Tribal Cultural Resource encountered during all ground disturbing activities.

PDF TCR-3 If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code shall be enforced for the duration of the Project.

Inadvertent discoveries of human remains and/or funerary object(s) are subject to California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the subsequent disposition of those discoveries shall be decided by the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), should those findings be determined as Native American in origin.
345
Introduction

1-12 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY

1. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The Project site is located within a highly urbanized portion of the City of Simi Valley, which primarily includes residential and commercial uses within the immediate vicinity.

Surrounding land uses include a vacant commercial lot to the north (planned for future development of multi-family townhomes), mobile home residences to the east, multi-family apartments to the west, and single-family residences to the south. Additionally, the Arroyo Simi Channel, owned and maintained by the VCFCD, traverses through the southern portion of the Project site.

2. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
• Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] permitting) and
• Ventura County Fire Department

3. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?
The Project is being evaluated for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 and Sena
te Bill (SB) 131. Consultation requirements under Section 21080.3.1 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) apply only to projects subject to CEQA and were therefore not triggered. As required by the proposed Project actions related to the GPA, the City, as the Lead Agency, conducted consultation pursuant to SB 18, and information obtained through that process has been considered in this IS. Refer to Section 2.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this IS for further information.
346

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-1

INITIAL STUDY

2.0 ENVIRONMENT AL CHECKLIST

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, inv
olving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

347
Environmental Checklist

2-2 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY

2.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. Scenic vistas are generally defined as natural landscapes that form views of unique flora, geology, or other natural features that are generally free from urban intrusions. Typical scenic vistas include views of mountains, hills, uninterrupted open space, and waterbodies. According to the Natural Resources Element of the City’s General Plan, scenic vistas in Simi Valley consist primarily of views of the surrounding hillsides, ridgelines, and open space areas, including the Santa Susana Mountains to the north and northeast and the Simi Hills to the southwest and south (City of Simi Valley 2012a).

The Project site, located within a developed urban residential area, is not identified as a scenic vista in the City’s General Plan, nor does it contain or provide access to any designated public scenic viewpoint, trail, or other view corridor. While distant views of surrounding mountains and hillsides are visible from portions of the Project site, these views are common throughout the City and generally obstructed due to distance and intervening development.

Existing views from the Project site primarily consist of surrounding residential development.

The Project would demolish two single-family homes and construct 60 two-story single- family residences with a maximum building height of 27 feet 6 inches, which would be consistent with the surrounding residential uses. Although the Project would introduce additional structures compared to existing conditions, the scale, height, and massing of Project structures would be consistent with surrounding development and would not substantially block or alter public views of the Simi Hills, Santa Susana Mountains, or other scenic resources identified in the City’s General Plan. As such, the Project would not have a 348
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-3

INITIAL STUDY
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mit
igation is required.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. Based on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California State Scenic Highway System Map, there are no designated state scenic highways within the City of Simi Valley (Caltrans 2026). The nearest eligible state scenic highway is a portion of SR 118, located approximately 0.8 miles north of the Project site. Due to intervening topography and development, the Project site is not visible from SR 118. Therefore, the Project would not damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project is in an urbanized area within the City and is immediately surrounded by existing residential development, with commercial/retail and institutional uses (Ventura County Fire Department Station No. 43) also located in the nearby vicinity. The Project is subject to the City’s Design Guidelines and Mature Tree Preservation Ordinance. To accommodate development of the Project, a total of 47 mature non-native trees would be removed from the site, and 1 mature non-native tree would remain protected in place. However, new non-native trees would be planted in their place.

Additionally, six mature oak trees, which are a protected species in the City, are located on the site. The Project would require the removal and replacement of five oak trees within the building footprint; the remaining oak tree, located on the parcel south of the Arroyo Simi Channel, would remain protected in place. The removal and replacement of the five oak trees would be conducted in accordance with all City requirements. The Project would comply with the City’s Design Guidelines and Landscape Design Guidelines, as adopted by the SVMC.

The Project has been designed in consideration of scale, massing, and architecture to ensure compatibility with existing surrounding development. Furthermore, the Project is required to comply with all applicable development standards within the SVMC prior to approval, including those pertaining to building scale, height, signage, parking, and architecture per Title 9 of the SVMC. Therefore, with adherence to the City’s existing standards and regulations, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
349
Environmental Checklist

2-4 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nig
httime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is in an urban area already subject to ambient lighting from the surrounding residential uses. Existing light sources include exterior building lights, parking lot pole lights, and interior building lights. The Project includes new exterior lighting sources such as exterior building lights associated with the residences, exterior ground lights associated with the site entrance and common open space areas, and exterior ground and pole lighting associated with private streets, parking areas, and common open space areas. In compliance with City standards, all on-site lighting would be shielded and directed downwards to prevent light trespass onto neighboring properties. While the Project would introduce new light sources, lighting levels would be consistent with the existing ambient and nighttime conditions in the surrounding areas. Through adherence to City standards, Project impacts related to new lighting sources would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Glare is a common daytime phenomenon and is due mainly to the occurrence of a high number of days per year with direct sunlight and the presence of large reflective surfaces.

Excessive glare not only restricts visibility but also increases the ambient heat reflectivity within a given area. Glare is caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials such as reflective glass and polished surfaces. During daylight hours, the amount of glare depends on intensity and direction of sunlight and can create hazards for motorists and nuisances for pedestrians and other viewers. The Project would be primarily constructed with non-reflective materials such as stucco, wood, and concrete. Use of reflective materials, such as metals, would be reserved for design accents. The use of glass would be limited and primarily confined to windows and would therefore not generate substantial glare affecting surrounding uses. As stated above, the Project would comply with the City Design Guidelines that include guidance for minimizing glare. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

350
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-5

INITIAL STUDY

2.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code Section
51104[g])?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?

Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g])?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The Project site is in an urbanized area and would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use. Based on review of the California Important Farmland Finder Map, prepared by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring 351
Environmental Checklist

2-6 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
Program, there are no lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of St
atewide Importance on or near the Project site (DLRP 2026a). The Project site is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land”, which refers to land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.4 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. The Project site is not being used, nor is it anticipated to be used or zoned for agricultural purposes. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract (DLRP 2026b).

Additionally, no forest land occurs on the Project site or in the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. In addition, the Project site does not contain designated forest land or timberland, as defined in the California Public Resources Code (Section 12220[g] and 4526, respectively). Therefore, no impacts to agricultural resources, forest land, or timberland would result from Project implementation, and no mitigation is required.

352
Environmental Checklist
OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-7
INI

TIAL STUDY

2.3 AIR QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Introduction
The following analysis is based on the following reports, included as Appendix A to this IS:
• Oak Road Townhomes Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, City of Simi Valley, CA (AQ, GHG, and Energy Study), dated March 29, 2024 and prepared for the Project by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (RK Engineering 2024a; Appendix A-1); and
• Oak Road Residential Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Energy, and Noise Impact Study Supplemental Memorandum, City of Simi Valley, dated January 20, 2026 and prepared for the project by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (RK Engineering 2026; Appendix A-2).

While the following analysis of potential air quality impacts associated with the Project is based on the updated AQ/GHG/Energy/Noise Technical Memo, the existing conditions and background information presented below are derived from the AQ/GHG/Energy Study, which remains applicable to the Project.

This section provides background information on criteria air pollutants, the applicable federal, state and local regulations concerning air pollution, and the existing physical setting of the Project within the context of local air quality. The California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2022.1.1 (CalEEMod) was used to calculate criteria air pollutants and GHG emissions from the construction and operation of the Project. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions.

The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operation activities (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as GHG emissions from off-site energy generation, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. The 353
Environmental Checklist

2-8 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
model also identifies design features to reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions. The model
was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air districts.

Existing Setting
The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) defines air pollution as any agent or combination of such age
nts, including any physical, chemical, biological, or radioactive substance which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Household combustion devices, motor vehicles, industrial facilities and forest fires are common sources of air pollution. Air pollution can cause disease, allergies and death. It affects soil, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate. It can also cause damage to and deterioration of property, present hazards to transportation, and negatively impact the economy.

Relevant elements of the proposed Project related to the analysis of potential air quality impacts include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. The Project is not expected to require the import or export of earthwork materials during construction.

The Project site is located in the Ventura County portion of the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), and, for air quality regulation and permitting, is under the jurisdiction of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD).

Description of Air Pollutants
The following discussion identifies the air pollutants of concern related to the Project.

Cri
teria air pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established air quality standards for outdoor or ambient concentrations to protect public health. The following criteria air pollutants have been provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (RK Engineering 2024a). • Carbon Monoxide (CO)
• Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
• Ozon
e (O3)
• Fin
e Particulate Matter (PM10)
• Ultr
a-Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
• Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
• Lea
d (Pb)
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
• Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
354
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-9

INITIAL STUDY
Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Federal Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires the United States Env
ironmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment.

The State of California has also established additional and more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) in addition to the seven criteria pollutants designated by the federal government. AAQS are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. The standards are divided into two categories, primary standards and secondary standards. Primary standards are implemented to provide protection for the “sensitive” populations such as those with asthma, or the children and elderly. Secondary standards are to provide protection against visible pollution as well as damage to the surrounding environment, including animals, crops, and buildings.

Table 2, below, shows the federal and State AAQS.
355
Environmental Checklist

2-10 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
TABLE 2
FEDE

RAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Air Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Standards California Standards O3 1 Hour — 0.09 ppm
8 Hour 8 Hour 0.070 ppm
CO 1 Hour 35 ppm 20 ppm
8 Hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
NO2 1 Hour 0.100 ppm 0.18 ppm
AAM 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm
SO2
1 Hour 0.075 ppm 0.25 ppm
3 Hour 0.5 ppm1 —
24 Hour — 0.04 ppm
PM10
24 Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
Mean — 20 µg/m3
PM2.5
24 Hour 35 µg/m3 —
AAM 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
Lead
30-day — 1.5 µg/m3
Quarter 1.5 µg/m3 —
3-month avg. 0.15 µg/m3 —
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 Hour — 0.23/km extinction coefficient
(10-mile visibility standard)
Sulfates 24 Hour — 25 µg/m3
Vinyl chloride 24 Hour — 0.01 ppm
Hydrogen sulfide 24 Hour — 0.03 ppm
O3: Ozone; CO: carbon monoxide; NO 2: nitrogen dioxide; SO 2: sulfur dioxide; PM 10: respirable particulate matter 10 micro
ns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; ppm: parts per million; µg/m3:
micrograms per cubic meter; AAM: Annual Arithmetic Mean; 30-day: 30-day average; Quarter: Calendar quarter; —: No Stan
dard; km: kilometer.
1 National Secondary Standards: t he levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

Source: RK Engineering 2024a (Appendix A-1).

Several pollutants listed above in Table 2 are not addressed in this analysis. Lead is not included as the Project is not anticipated to emit lead; visibility-reducing particles are not explicitly addressed in this analysis because particulate matter is addressed; the Project is not expected to generate or be exposed to vinyl chloride because the proposed uses do not utilize the chemical processes that create this pollutant and there are no such uses in the Project vicinity; and the Project is not expected to cause exposure to hydrogen sulfide because it would not generate hydrogen sulfide in any substantial quantity. (RK Engineering 2024a)
356
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-1 1

INITIAL STUDY
Attainment Status
The Clean Air Act requires states to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to ensure air qua
lity meets the NAAQS. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) provides designations of attainment for air basins where AAQS are either met or exceeded. If the AAQS are met, the area is designated as being in “attainment”, if the air pollutant concentrations exceed the AAQS, than the area is designated as being “nonattainment”. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, the area is considered “unclassified.”
National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Each standard has a different definition, or ‘form’ of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics.

For example, the Federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM 2.5 sta
ndard is met if the three-year average of the annual average PM 2.5 concentration is less tha
n or equal to the standard.

When a state submits a request to the EPA to re-designate a nonattainment area to attainment, the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(a) requires that the state (or states, if the area is a multistate area) submit a maintenance plan ensuring the area can maintain the air quality standard for which the area is to be re-designated for at least 10 years following the effective date of redesignation. Table 3 lists the attainment status for the criteria pollutants in the SCCAB.

TABLE 3

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS

Pollutant State Status National Status
O3 (8 hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment*
CO Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment
PM2.5 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Lead Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
O3: Ozone; CO: carbon monoxide; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diam
eter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter. * Parti
al Nonattainment designation – Ventura County portion of Basin only.

Source: RK Engineering 2024a (Appendix A-1).

357
Environmental Checklist

2-12 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
The agency responsible for air pollution control in Ventura County is the Ventura County Air Pollut
ion Control District. VCAPCD is responsible for controlling adverse effects of air pollution by identifying air pollution problems and developing programs to achieve and maintain state and federal air quality standards. Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), VCAPCD is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing the Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). An AQMP is a plan prepared and implemented by an air pollution district for a county or region designated as nonattainment of the federal and/or California ambient air quality standards. The term nonattainment area is used to refer to an air basin where one or more ambient air quality standards are exceeded.

The latest version is the 2022 AQMP, adopted in December 2022. The 2022 AQMP is a regional blueprint for achieving the federal air quality standards and healthful air. While air quality has dramatically improved over the years, the SCCAB still exceeds federal public health standards for Ozone. The 2022 AQMP includes both stationary and mobile source strategies to ensure that rapidly approaching attainment deadlines are met, that public health is protected to the maximum extent feasible, and that the region is not faced with burdensome sanctions if the Plan is not approved or if the NAAQS are not met on time.

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations VCAPCD establishes a program of rules and regulations to obtain attainment of the state and federal standards in conjunction with the AQMP. Several of the rules and regulations that may be applicable to this project include, but are not limited to, the following:
• VCAPCD Rule 51 prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.
• VCAPCD Rule 55 governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction and operation activities. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best Management Practices, such as application of chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, covering haul vehicles, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, etc.
• VCAPCD Rule 62.7 controls the disturbance of asbestos-containing material (ACM) during demolition and renovation activities. Compliance with this rule is achieved through compliance with demolition/renovation notification requirement and emission control requirements.
• VCAPCD Rule 74.2 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coatings and limits the VOC content in paints and paint solvents. All paints and solvents used during construction and operation of the project must comply with Rule 74.2. 358
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-1 3

INITIAL STUDY
Local Air Quality
The air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources.

Regi
onal air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. The proposed Project site is located within the SCCAB. Published air quality data for the region is made available by CARB through their iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics program. The nearest iADAM monitoring station to the Project site is the Simi Valley – Cochran Street station.

Table 4 summarizes the published air quality monitoring data from the Simi Valley – Cochran Street station for the most recent 3-year period available. These pollutant levels are used to comprise a “background” for the Project location and existing local air quality. 359
Environmental Checklist

2-14 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
TABLE 4
AIR Q

UALITY LEVELS MEASURED AT THE
SIMI VALLEY – COCHRAN STREET MONITORING STATION

Pollutant
California
Standard
National
Standard Year Max. Level
State
Standard
Days Exceeded
National
Standard
Days Exceeded
O3
(1
hour) 0.09 ppm None
2022 0.094 0 0
2023 0.094 0 0
2024 0.089 0 0
O3
(8
hour) 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
2022 0.083 11 10
2023 0.081 12 12
2024 0.079 15 13
PM10
(24
hour) 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m 3
2022 45.8 0 0
2023 85.5 4 0
2024 110.9 3 0
PM10 (AAM) 20 µg/m 3 None
2022 20.5 – –
2023 17.3 – –
2024 18.2 – –
NO2
(1
hour) 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
2022 0.046 0 0
2023 0.032 0 0
2024 0.034 0 0
NO2
(AA
M) 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
2022 0.006 – –
2023 0.005 – –
2024 0.007 – –
CO
(1 hour) 20 ppm 35 ppm
2022 NA NA NA
2023 NA NA NA
2024 NA NA NA
CO
(8 hour) 9 ppm 9 ppm
2022 NA NA NA
2023 NA NA NA
2024 NA NA NA
PM2.5
(24
Hour) None 35 µg/m 3
2022 22.7 – 0
2023 19.9 – 0
2024 30.0 – 0
PM2.5
(AA
M) 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m 3
2022 7.2 – –
2023 6.7 – –
2024 7.3 – –
O3: ozone; ppm: parts per million; PM10: respirable particulate matter with diameter of 10 microns or less; µg/m3:
micro
grams per cubic meter; AAM: Annual Arithmetic Mean; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; CO: carbon monoxide; PM 2.5: fine parti
culate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less.

NA: Not Available
Source: CARB 2026.

360
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-1 5

INITIAL STUDY
Sensitive Air Quality Receptors
Sensitive receptors are considered land uses or other types of population groups that are more
sensitive to air pollution exposure. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely and chronically ill, and those with cardio-respiratory diseases.

For CEQA purposes, the VCAPCD considers sensitive receptors to be facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses (e.g., schools, hospitals, daycare centers, etc.), as described in the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, dated October 2003. There are several sensitive land uses adjacent to the Project site, including the following (RK Engineering 2024a):

Receptor-1 Existing Crest Mobile Home Village located approximately 16 feet east of the eastern boundary of the Project site, approximately 455 feet south of the centerline of East Los Angeles Avenue.

Receptor-2 Existing residential land uses located a minimum of approximately 39 feet south-southeast of the southeastern corner of the proposed Project site, approximately 1,040 feet south of the centerline of East Los Angeles Avenue.

Receptor-3 Existing Sage Creek Apartment Homes located along the western boundary of the Project site, approximately 250 feet south of the centerline of East Los Angeles Avenue.

Exhibit A of Appendix A-2 includes a Project Site Location Map showing sensitive receptor locations.

These regional emission thresholds cannot be used to correlate whether a specific health impact would occur to an individual receptor. These significance thresholds were developed to assist Lead Agencies with a consistent threshold that could be used to determine whether a project’s emissions could significantly contribute to the total emissions occurring within an air basin. The totality of the air basin’s emissions would determine whether it would be in attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS.

Localized Significance Thresholds of Significance
Short-term local impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from on-site emissions of NO 2, CO, PM10,
and PM 2.5 are examined based on SCAQMD’s localized significance threshold (LST) meth
odology. To assess local air quality impacts for development projects without complex dispersion modeling, the SCAQMD developed screening (lookup) tables to assist lead agencies in evaluating impacts. The LST method was developed to provide a conservative estimate of the level of project-generated air pollutants that have the potential to exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS, which could consequently result in adverse health impacts. Exceedance of the LST does not describe the prevalence or magnitude of health effects, but rather assesses the potential for a project-related health effect to occur. The LST method cannot provide an estimate of health effects related to O 3. Reactive organic gases and NO x are pollutants that 361
Environmental Checklist

2-16 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
contribute to the formation of O 3, otherwise known as O 3 precursors. It would be too specu
lative to determine how an individual project could affect the formation of O3 and how it
could affect the health for a specific receptor: O 3 does not fully form within the proximity of a
project site, and the formation of O 3 is affected by solar irradiance, meteorological condi
tions, presence of O 3 precursors from other sources, and other factors. As such, modeli
ng of O 3 concentrations is conducted on the “macro” scale of an air basin for all polluta
nt sources within the basin, and not for an individual project. Consequently, the LST analysis focuses on a project-level analysis of the four criteria pollutants of greatest concern (CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5).

The
LST method is recommended to be limited to projects that are five acres or less. For the purposes of an LST analysis, the SCAQMD considers receptors where it is possible that an individual could remain for 1 hour for NO2 and CO exposure and 24 hours for PM10 and PM2.5 expos
ure. The emissions limits in the lookup tables are based on the SCAQMD’s Ambient Air Quality Standards (SCAQMD 2022).

Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The City of Simi Valley, including the Project site, is within the SCCAB. On December 13, 2022, the VCAPCD adopted their 2022 AQMP. Per the VCAPCD Guidelines, a project is considered consistent with the AQMP if it does not cause the existing population to exceed the population forecasts contained in the most recently adopted AQMP. However, if there are more recent population forecasts that have been adopted by the Ventura Council of Governments, those forecasts may be used to determine AQMP consistency.

As stated in the 2022 AQMP, Ventura County had a population of approximately 861,000 residents in 2018, and the population is estimated to increase to approximately 934,000 residents by year 2040 (i.e., an increase of 73,000 residents) (RK Engineering 2026). The Project consists of constructing 60 single-family dwelling units. Assuming an average household size of 3.00 persons, the Project would result in the generation of approximately 180 residents to Ventura County, representing less than one percent of the projected population growth. Therefore, the Project would not generate growth exceeding the projected population growth forecast and would be consistent with the most recent 2022 AQMP and no impact would occur related to conflicting or obstructing implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
362
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-1 7

INITIAL STUDY
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which th
e project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Short-term Construction Impacts
Construction air quality emissions include both on- and off-site emissions associated with const
ruction of the Project. Table 5 summarizes the maximum daily emissions during construction of the Project.

TABLE 5

REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Activity
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 2.69 25.24 22.82 0.03 1.47 1.06
Site Preparation 3.73 36.06 34.11 0.05 9.49 5.47
Grading 1.96 18.32 19.74 0.03 3.80 2.15
Building
Construction 1.30 11.62 14.52 0.02 0.84 0.54
Paving 1.01 7.53 10.84 0.01 0.54 0.37
Architectural
Coating 35.33 0.91 1.39 0.00 0.08 0.04
Maximum1 35.33 36.06 34.11 0.05 9.49 5.47
VCAPCD
Threshold2 75 75 - - -- -- --
Exceeds
Threshold? No No -- -- -- --
1 Maximum daily emissions during summer or winter; includes both onsite and offsite project emissions. 2 Per VCAPCD Guidelines, the ROC and NOx significance threshold for the City of Simi Valley is 13.7 tons per year, which is ap
proximately 75 pounds per day.

Source: RK Engineering 2026 (Appendix A-2).

Per VCAPCD Guidelines, construction-related emissions of reactive organic compounds and NOx should not be counted toward the two significance thresholds, as these emissions are tempor
ary. However, the VCAPCD recommends incorporating emissions reduction measures if construction emissions estimates exceed the 13.7 tons per year, or approximately 75 pounds per day, significance threshold for the City of Simi Valley. As shown in the table above, daily reactive organic compounds and NOx emissions during construction are
not expected to exceed 75 pounds per day. Therefore, the Project’s short-term construction impact on regional air resources will be less than significant. 363
Environmental Checklist

2-18 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
Fugitive Dust
The Project would be required to comply with standard VCAPCD rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions associated with suspended particulate matter, also known as fugitive dust. Fugitive dust emissions are commonly associated with land clearing activities, cut-and-fill grading operations, and exposure of soils to the air and wind. VCAPCD Rule 55 requires that fugitive dust is controlled so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, VCAPCD Rule 55 requires the implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site. By implementing the Project design features, impacts related to fugitive dust control measures and potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations would be less than significant.

Long-term Operational Impacts
Table 6 shows the Project’s daily operational emissions compared with the VCAPCD thr
esholds.

TABLE 6

REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS

Activity
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources 2.50 2.21 19.64 0.04 3.91 1.01
Area Sources 2.87 0.03 3.39 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Sources 0.04 0.66 0.28 0.00 0.05 0.05
Total 5.41 2.90 23.31 0.04 3.96 1.06
City of Simi Valley
Threshold2 75 75 -- -- -- --
Exceeds
Threshold? No No -- -- -- --
1 Maximum daily emissions during summer or winter; includes both onsite and offsite project emissions. 2 Per VCAPCD Guidelines, the ROC and NOx significance threshold for the City of Simi Valley is 13.7 tons per year, which is ap
proximately 75 pounds per day.

Source: RK Engineering 2026 (Appendix A-2).

As shown in the table above, the Project’s daily and annual operational emissions will be below the applicable air quality standards and thresholds of significance. However, according to the VCAPCD Guidelines, a project with emissions of two pounds per day or greater of ROC, or two pounds per day or greater of NO x that is found to be consistent with the
AQMP will have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact. As shown in Table 6, the Project is expected to generate greater than two pounds per day of reactive organic gases and NOx. As such, a determination of the Project’s consistency with the AQMP is required. 364
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-1 9

INITIAL STUDY
Per the VCAPCD Guidelines, a project is considered consistent with the AQMP if it does not caus
e the existing population to exceed the population forecasts contained in the most recently adopted AQMP. However, if there are more recent population forecasts that have been adopted by the Ventura Council of Governments, they may be used to determine AQMP consistency.

According to the 2022 AQMP, Ventura County had a population of approximately 861,000 residents in 2018, and the County’s population is estimated to increase to approximately 934,000 residents by year 2040 (an increase of 73,000 residents). The Project would construct 60 single-family detached dwelling units. Assuming an average household size of

3.00 persons, the Project would add approximately 180 residents to Ventura County, representing less than one percent of the projected population growth.

Therefore, the proposed project would not generate growth exceeding the projected population growth forecast and would be consistent with the most recent AQMP.

Furthermore, as described above, the proposed project would not generate annual or daily emissions in excess of the applicable air quality standards and thresholds of significance. As a result, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).

The proposed Project’s long-term regional air quality impacts would be less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Asbestos
Asbestos is a carcinogen and is categorized as a hazardous air pollutant by the EPA and reg
ulated through the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Asbestos fibers imbedded within construction materials become a health hazard once they are disturbed and rendered airborne, such as through physical contact like building renovation and demolition activities.

VCAPCD is the local enforcement authority for asbestos. VCAPCD Rule 62.7 establishes the survey requirements, notification, and work practices to prevent asbestos emissions from emanating during building renovation and demolition activities.

Asbestos also occurs naturally in serpentine and ultramafic rock. Based on the California Division of Mines and Geology General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California - Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos, naturally occurring asbestos has not been shown to occur in the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, the potential risk for naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) during project construction is small. However, in the event NOA is found on the site, the Project would be required to comply with VCAPCD and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants standards.

By following the required asbestos abatement protocols, the Project impact would be less than significant.
365
Environmental Checklist

2-20 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
Diesel Particulate Matter
The project would generate diesel particulate matter during construction from off-road die
sel equipment and trucks. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment adopted the Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments to provide procedures for use in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program or for the permitting of existing, new, or modified stationary sources.

The Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments provide risk factors based on exposure to toxic substances over a 30-year lifetime span. The proposed project’s construction activity is not expected to be a long-term (i.e., 30 years) source of toxic air contaminant emissions and short-term risk factors have not been developed. Due to the significantly reduced risk from short-term exposure, VCAPCD does not typically require the evaluation of long-term cancer risk or chronic health impacts for construction operations from a project such as the one being proposed.

The following design features would reduce diesel exhaust emissions and are recommended to be included as part of the conditions of approval. With the recommended Project Design Features, the potential diesel particulate matter exposure to adjacent sensitive receptors is considered less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Per the VCAPCD Guidelines, all projects that may emit TACs should be assessed to determine whe
ther those TAC emissions may adversely affect nearby populations. The proposed project consists of residential land uses and would not include any of the above major sources of TAC emissions identified by the VCAPCD (and detailed in Appendix A) that would result in significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Furthermore, the proposed project site is not located within one quarter mile of any existing facilities that emit TACs. As a result, the project’s impact from TAC emissions is considered less than significant.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
The VCAPCD regulated localized CO emissions in order to minimize exposure of sensitive rece
ptors that are near the Project site. typically, areas with high concentrations of CO, or CO “hotspots,” are linked to roadways or intersections with heavy traffic and congestion.

Therefore, the VCAPCD has established a preliminary CO hotspot screening based on Caltrans protocol.

Per VCAPCD Guidelines, an assessment of potential CO hotspots should be conducted for any project with indirect emissions greater than the applicable ozone project significance thresholds that may significantly impact roadway intersections that are currently operating at, or are expected to operate at, Levels of Service E or F.

Based on the Oak Road Townhomes Project Traffic Impact Study, City of Simi Valley, CA, prepared by RK Engineering and dated March 2024 (RK Engineering 2024c), the proposed 366
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-2 1

INITIAL STUDY
Project is not located adjacent to any streets or intersections currently operating at LOS E or F, nor
is it expected to reduce the LOS of any streets or intersections to E or F. therefore, the Project would not require CO hotspot modeling, and the Project impact to air quality due to CO emissions would be less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Heavy-duty equipment in the Project area during construction would emit odors; however, the construction activity would cease to occur after individual construction is completed. The project is required to comply with Rule 51 during construction, which states that a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. No other sources of objectionable odors have been identified for the proposed Project.

Land uses that commonly receive odor complaints include agricultural uses (farming and livestock), chemical plants, composting operations, dairies, fiberglass molding facilities, food processing plants, landfills, refineries, rail yards, and wastewater treatment plants. The proposed residential project does not contain land uses that would typically be associated with significant odor emissions.

The project would be required to comply with standard building code requirements related to exhaust ventilation, as well as comply with VCAPCD Rule 51. Rule 51 requires that a person may not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Project related odors are not expected to meet the criteria of being a nuisance.

Therefore, the Project impact related to odor emissions would be less than significant.

Project Design Features
PDF AQ-1 The Project will implement avoidance features to reduce ozone precursor emissions during construction, as recommended by the VCAPCD. These features include, but are not limited to:

1. Minimize equipment idling time to five (5) minutes or less.

2. Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers’ specifications.

3. Lengthen the construction period during smog season (May through October), to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.
367
Environmental Checklist

2-22 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY

4. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed na
tural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric, if feasible.

PDF AQ-2 The Project will follow the VCAPCD rules and requirements for fugitive dust control, which include, but are not limited to the following:

1. The Project shall not allow track-out to extend 25 feet or more in length unless at least one of the following three control measures is utilized:
i. Track-Out Area Improvement: Pave or apply chemical
stabilization at sufficient concentration and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface starting from the point of intersection with public paved surface, and extend for a centerline distance of at least 100 feet with an acceptable width to accommodate traffic ingress and egress from the site. ii. Track-Out Prevention: Check and clean the undercarriage and wheels on all vehicles before leaving unpaved surface or install a properly functioning and well-maintained track-out control device(s) that prevents track-out of soil onto paved public roads.
iii. Track-Out Removal: Remove track-out from pavement as soon as possible but no later than one hour after it has been deposited on the paved road. If a street sweeper is used to remove any track-out, only PM 10-efficient street sweepers certified to meet SCAQ
MD Rule 1186 requirements shall be used. The make and
model information and certification documentation of any sweeper used shall be made available upon request.

The
use of blowers for removal of track-out is expressly prohibited under any circumstances.

3. The Project shall not engage in earth-moving activities in a manner that creates visible dust emissions over 100 feet in length.

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-2 3

INITIAL STUDY
iii. Utilize a wheel shaker/wheel spreading device, also known as a ru
mble grate, consisting of raised dividers (rails, pipe, or grates) at least 24 feet long and sufficient width to allow all wheels of vehicle traffic to travel over grate to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site. iv. Install and utilize a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site.
v. Any other measure or device that prevents track-out onto public paved roads.

5. The Project shall not load or allow the loading of bulk materials or soil onto outbound trucks unless at least one of the following dust prevention techniques is utilized:
i. Use properly secured tarps or cargo covering that covers the entire surface area of the load or use a container-type enclosure. ii. Maintain a minimum of six inches of freeboard below the rim of the truck bed where the load touches the sides of the cargo area and ensure that the peak of the load does not extend above any part of the upper edge of the cargo area.
iii. Water or otherwise treat the bulk material to minimize loss of material to wind or spillage.
iv. Other effective dust prevention control measures.

6. The Project shall not conduct any construction activity or any earthmoving activity on a public unpaved road that causes:
i. Visible emissions of 20 percent opacity or greater during each observation and the total duration of such observation (not necessarily consecutive) is a cumulative 3 minutes or more in one hour. Only opacity readings from a single source shall be included in the cumulative total used to determine compliance; or
ii. A visible dust plume that exceeds 100 feet in length.

PDF AQ-4 Minimize the simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units, to the maximum extent feasible.

PDF AQ-5 Establish an electricity supply to the construction site and use electric- powered equipment instead of diesel-powered equipment or generators, where feasible.
369
Environmental Checklist

2-24 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
PDF AQ-6 U t ilize zero VOC and low VOC paints and solvents, where feasible.

370
Environmental Checklist
OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-25
IN

ITIAL STUDY

2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Introduction
The following analysis of biological resources is based on the following reports, included as Appendix B to this IS:
• Biological Site Assessment, Oak Road South Project, Simi Valley California (Biological Site Assessment), dated September 10, 2025, prepared by Envicom (Envicom 2025; Appendix B-1);
• Mature Non-Native Tree Report, dated September 19, 2025, prepared by Richard Campbell (Campbell 2025a; Appendix B-2); and
• Oak Tree Report, dated September 19, 2025. prepared by Richard Campbell (Campbell 2025b; Appendix B-3).
371
Environmental Checklist

2-26 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located on a largely undeveloped site, and surrounded by a mix of residential, institutional, and commercial uses. The Project site topography is generally flat and a channelized portion of Arroyo Simi, a drainage within the Calleguas Watershed, is situated between APNS 6370-140-155 and 6370-140-325 and flows in a general east to west direction. Vegetation within the site consists mainly of non-native grasslands with landscaped patches in the residential portions. Large, mature trees are present throughout the Project site and are generally clustered along property edges. Some native and non-native trees are sparsely scattered throughout the grassland.

Vegetation Communities
According to the Biological Site Assessment, 14 Sensitive Plant Communities/Habitats were ide
ntified as potentially occurring in the Project vicinity. However, none of these Sensitive Plant Communities/Habitats occur within the Project site. While several valley oak (Quercus lobata) individuals were observed they did not comprise the minimum relative cover requirements to meet the vegetation community membership rules listed in the MCV for Valley Oak Woodland, which are over 30 percent when coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia ), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), California bay (Umbellularia californica), or California black oak (Quercus kellogii) are present, or 50 percent when these species are not present. The single southern California black walnut ( Juglans californica) observed within APN 6370-140-325 did not appear to be part of a larger walnut tree community and therefore would not be considered either a Walnut Forest or California Walnut Woodland.

A single California Native Plant Society Manual of California Vegetation-listed vegetation alliance was identified within the Study Area, comprising a Wild Oat and Annual Brome Grassland (Avena spp. – Bromus spp., Herbaceous Semi- Natural Alliance). Other vegetation within the Study Area includes areas dominated by non-native grasses and herbs, scattered native and non-native trees, and landscaped areas. Vegetation and land use within the Study Area are represented in Figure 3, Biological Resource & Land Use Map of the Biological Site Assessment (Appendix B-1).

Vegetation Communities Herbaceous
The wild oat and annual brome grassland present in the majority of the Study Area is dominated by introduced grasses mainly comprising common wild oat ( Avena fatua), great brome ( Bromus diandrus ), red brome ( Bromus rubens ), rattail sixweeks grass ( Festuca myuros), and wall barley ( Hordeum murinum). Other introduced species present within the herbaceous layer include common stork’s bill ( Erodium cicutarium ), white horehound 372
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-2 7

INITIAL STUDY
(Marrubium vulgare ), and henbit ( Lamium amplexicaule). Native herbaceous species are present in small numbers and sparsely distributed within this vegetation community. Native perennial plants include jimson weed ( Datura wrightii) and California man-root ( Marah fabaceae), while native annual plants include pygmy weed ( Crassula connata), fiddleneck (Amsinckia tessellata), and annual bur-sage ( Ambrosia acanthicarpa). Six species were identified within the shrub and tree layers, comprising three native species: blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), red willow ( Salix laevigata), and valley oak, and three non-native species: blue gum (Eucalyptus globula), Chilean pepper (Schinus polygama), and Mexican fan palm ( Washingtonia robusta ). Three blue elderberry individuals are present within this vegetation community, two presenting as small to medium sized trees and one presenting as a shrub. Two red willow trees are also present.

Other Landcover
Two single-family residences and one undeveloped lot are also present within the Study Area. The residences contain various associated developments, including paved areas, fencing, storage structures, and an above-ground pool. Portions of these areas include dirt roads and turnouts. Vegetation within these areas is generally non-native, with most plants either landscaped species or common non-native weeds. The majority of species within the tree layer are non-native and are dominated by blue gum and tree-of-heaven ( Ailanthus altissima) stands and individuals. Two native tree species were identified within these areas, comprising two valley oak individuals and a single southern California black walnut.

Plant Species
Surveys of the Study Area were conducted in spring of 2024 and summer of 2025. A total of 55 species of vascular plants were identified during the surveys. Fifteen of the plants observed were naturally occurring native species and 40 were non-native or introduced. Of the 40 non-native or introduced species, 13 were landscaped. One native plant and six non- native landscape plants could only be identified to genus level during surveys due to the lack of necessary diagnostic parts. Due to the absence of requisite habitat types and the Study Area being outside of the known elevation range, the one unidentified native plant is not expected to be a listed or rare species. A complete list of the vascular plant species observed during the survey is provided in Table 2, Vascular Plants Detected During Surveys of the Biological Site Assessment (Appendix B-1).

Special Status Plant Species
The literature review returned 47 rare plant species with potential to occur within the USGS

7.5’
Santa Susana quadrangle and the eight surrounding quadrangles. Records for two special-status plant species, Santa Susana tarplant (Deinandra minthornii) and Payne’s bush lupine (Lupinus paynei), occurred within two miles of the Project site. An Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) query listed five special-status plant species with potential to occur within the Study Area: California Orcutt grass ( Orcuttia californica ), Gambel’s watercress ( Rorippa gambelli ), Lyon’s pentachaeta ( Pentachaeta lyonii ), marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola), and spreading navarretia ( Navarretia fossalis ). However, no plant 373
Environmental Checklist

2-28 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
species considered to be Endangered, Threatened, or Rare were identified during the survey of th
e Project site.

Potential for Occurrence Analysis – Special-Status Plant Species Special-status plant species either have unique biological significance, limited distribution, restricted habitat requirements, particular susceptibility to human disturbance, or a combination of these factors. For this report, special-status plant species include those plants listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act and/or the California Endangered Species Act, and those plants included in the California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Inventory. Based on vegetation community types, substrates, and elevation range at the study area, and published natural history information, no suitable habitat for special-status plant species is present within the Study Area; therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Wildlife
A total of 35 species of wildlife were observed during the site visit, comprising 21 species of bir
ds, 2 species of mammals, 2 species of reptiles, and 10 species of insects. Wildlife species observed during surveys of the Study Area were primarily species that are common or relatively common to the region. A list of the species observed is provided as Table 3, Wildlife Detected During Surveys of the Biological Site Assessment (Appendix B-1). The list of wildlife species observed during the surveys does not constitute a full list of species that may utilize habitats within the Study Area for cover, foraging, and/or reproduction. Furthermore, species observed within the Study Area represent only those that are detectable during daytime hours. Four active bird nests were observed during the survey, belonging to American crow ( Corvus brachyrhynchos ), Bewick’s wren ( Thyromanes bewickii), white- breasted nuthatch ( Sitta carolinensis ), and Allen’s hummingbird ( Selasphorus sasin ). It is likely these represent a fraction of the active bird nests present within the Study Area, and numerous other wildlife species, including reptiles, birds, and small mammals, can be expected to reproduce within the Study Area. Bird species observed during the survey consisted of both year-round and summer residents as well as potential migrants. Raptors can be anticipated to forage over and in the vicinity of the site on a routine basis, and several inactive raptor nests were observed within the Eucalyptus trees present within the Study Area. Numerous California ground squirrels ( Otospermophilus beecheyi) were observed utilizing burrows and wood piles for cover and foraging within the Study Area. Western fence lizards ( Sceloporus occidentalis ) and side-blotched lizards ( Uta stanisburiana) were observed basking on wood piles and concrete walls bordering the Study Area. These species can all be expected to reside and reproduce within the Study Area. Bats may also forage over the site, at least occasionally. A range of larger, more mobile species may use the site routinely, including foraging or nesting raptors and small to large sized mammals that may be found in the nearby hills.
374
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-2 9

INITIAL STUDY
Special Status Wildlife Species
For the purposes of this report, special-status wildlife species are those species included on the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) “Special Animals” list. “Special Animal” is a general term that refers to all the taxa the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) tracks, regardless of their legal or protection status. This list is also referred to as the list of “species at risk” or “special-status species”. The CDFW considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need.

Literature Review Results
The literature review did not return any reported occurrences of special-status wildlife species within the Project site. The CNDDB query returned occurrences of western spadefoot (Spea hammondii ), southern California rufous-crowned sparrow ( Aimophila ruficeps canescens), Crotch’s bumble bee ( Bombus crotchii ), and American bumble bee ( Bombus pensylvanicus) within two miles of the Study Area. The IPaC query listed nine special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the Study Area: California condor ( Gymnogyps californianus), coastal California gnatcatcher ( Polioptila californica californica), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus ), yellow-billed cuckoo ( Coccyzus americanus), monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), southwestern pond turtle ( Actinemys pallida), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). There is no U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)-designated Critical Habitat within the Study Area or its immediate vicinity.

Survey Results
One special-status species, the monarch butterfly, was observed during the survey of the Study Area. Monarch butterfly is a migratory insect that overwinters in California’s coastal regions.

Potential for Occurrence Analysis
Habitat suitability for each species returned from CNDDB and IPaC queries was assigned a rank of Absent, Low, Moderate, High, and Present. The results of the habitat assessment indicate that 12 special-status species have potential to occur within the Study Area, all with low potential to occur meaning that habitat meeting some, but not all, of the criteria to support these species is present. These 12 species comprise one candidate for state listing (Crotch’s bumble bee), one candidate for federal listing (monarch – California overwintering population [Danaus plexippus plexippus population 1], six CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSC) (California glossy snake [Arizona elegans occidentalis ], coastal whiptail [ Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri], coast horned lizard [Phrynosoma blainvillii], coast patch-nosed snake [Salvadora hexalepis virgultea], yellow warbler [Setophaga petechia], and western mastiff bat [Eumops perotis californicus ]), and two species included in the CDFW Watch List (WL) (Cooper’s hawk [Accipiter cooperii ] and southern California rufous-crowned sparrow). The remaining two species, American bumble bee and western small-footed myotis ( Myotis ciliolabrum), have state rankings of S2 and S3, respectively. These species may pass through the Study Area briefly or utilize resources for foraging, but most are unlikely to shelter or 375
Environmental Checklist

2-30 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
reproduce on site. Habitat suitability for these species is discussed further below. All other speci
al-status species returned in the database queries were assigned the ranking of Presumed Absent, indicating that no suitable habitat was observed within the Study Area or immediately adjacent areas. A full potential to occur analysis for all species returned in the CNDDB and IPaC queries are listed in Appendix C, Special-Status Wildlife Potential to Occur of the Biological Site Assessment (Appendix B) . The following provides the rationale for determining the habitat suitability and potential to occur for special status species within the Project site. Crotch’s and American bumble bees may forage on flowering plants within the Project site and use abandoned animal burrows for nesting; however, the presence of minimal numbers of the preferred food genera for each species coupled with the high level of development surrounding the site makes their presence within the site unlikely. Foraging habitat for Cooper’s hawk and other raptors may occur within the Project site, and, while large, well-established oaks and eucalyptus are present on site, marginal raptor nesting habitat is present due to the high level of development surrounding the Study Area. Potential foraging and nesting habitat are also present for passerines, including California rufous crowned sparrow and yellow warbler. Foraging habitat for western mastiff bat, western small-footed myotis, and other species of bats is present within the Study Area, and tree- roosting species may utilize the oaks on site for this purpose; however, the site lacks requisite habitat for cliff or cave roosting species. California glossy snake, coastal whiptail, coast horned lizard, and coast patch-nosed snake may utilize the Project site for foraging, however the lack of connectivity to more suitable habitat and open space makes their presence improbable. Suitable habitat to support special status aquatic or semi-aquatic species is absent from the Project site. A single monarch butterfly was observed within the Study Area. Monarch butterfly winter roosting habitat is currently being considered for listing as endangered under FESA. Although the species was observed within the Study Area, the site was determined to contain low suitability habitat for roosting monarch butterfly due to being outside the requisite microclimate. While some eucalyptus trees, known to be used by monarchs for roosting, are present within the Study Area, the species requires coastal areas where humidity is relatively high, and low temperatures stay between 32- and 59- degrees Fahrenheit (USFS).

Monarch Butterfly
Monarch butterfly habitat consists mainly of prairies, meadows, grasslands, and any location whe
re they have access to flowering plants. Monarchs would feed on the nectar from many different flowering species but rely upon milkweeds in the genus Asclepias for host plants on which they lay their eggs. The monarch butterfly is a migratory species with western north American populations overwintering in the coastal regions of California. They utilize a variety of tree and shrub species for roosting during overwintering, but prefer Monterey pines (Pinus radiata), Monterey cypress ( Hesperocyparis macrocarpa), and those species in the genus Eucalyptus. One monarch butterfly record, approximately ten (10) miles northeast of the Study Area, occurs within the nine-quad CNDDB search. Additionally, a single monarch butterfly was observed traversing the site during the survey. However, as discussed in the previous section, the Study Area is outside of the required microclimate for monarch overwintering. As only the overwintering habitat for the species, and not the species itself, is proposed for protection the potential for occurrence for species was determined to be ‘Low’; therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
376
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-3 1

INITIAL STUDY
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural co
mmunity identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. The concrete-lined Arroyo Simi, which is categorized by the USFWS as a Freshwater Emergent Wetland, is situated between the two southern lots included within the Study Area. While the Arroyo Simi was originally a natural, unlined water body it was later altered and the portion transecting the Project site is now a rectangular, open-top, concrete-lined drainage. Remnant riparian vegetation consisting of two red willow individuals is present within the southwestern portion of the Study Area, however due to the concrete-lined nature of this section of the Arroyo Simi it should not be considered a riparian zone. Specifically, the portion of the Arroyo Simi that borders the Project site has vertical concrete walls of an estimated height over six feet tall. Due to this characteristic, it is unable to support aquatic or semi-aquatic species that require riparian vegetation or natural substrate and should not be considered habitat for common or special-status aquatic or semi-aquatic species. No riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities were identified within the Project site and a less than significant impact would occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than Significant Impact. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and CDFW collectively regulate jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and state. No potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources were identified within the Project site. A query of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database returned no records for aquatic resources within the Project site. The concrete-lined Arroyo Simi, which is categorized by the USFWS as a Freshwater Emergent Wetland, is situated between the two southern lots included within the Study Area. While the Arroyo Simi was originally a natural, unlined water body it was later altered and the portion transecting the Study Area is now a rectangular, open-top, concrete-lined drainage. Remnant riparian vegetation consisting of two red willow individuals is present within the southwestern portion of the Study Area, however due to the concrete-lined nature of this section of the Arroyo Simi it should not be considered a riparian zone. Specifically, the portion of the Arroyo Simi that borders the Study Area has vertical concrete walls of an estimated height over six feet tall. Due to this characteristic, it is unable to support aquatic or semi-aquatic species that require riparian vegetation or natural substrate and should not be considered habitat for common or special-status aquatic or semi-aquatic species. No potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources were identified within the Project site and a less than significant impact would occur. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact. The Study Area is relatively isolated from Wilderness Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, National Wildlife Refuge areas or other conservation areas. The closest conservation area is Hopper Mountain Wildlife Refuge, 377
Environmental Checklist

2-32 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
approximately 15 miles north of the Study Area. The IPaC results returned critical habitat for
California gnatcatcher ( Polioptila californica) 1.25 miles northeast, however no critical habitat for special-status species was identified within the Study Area. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with wildlife movement and a less than significant impact would occur. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would require the removal and replacement of 47 mature non-native trees and 5 mature oak trees, as outlined in the Mature Non-Native Tree Report and the Oak Tree Report, (Campbell 2025a and Campbell 2025b), included as Appendix B-2 and B-3, respectively. To accommodate development of the Project, a total of 47 mature non-native trees would be removed from the site, and 1 mature non-native tree would remain protected in place. However, new non-native trees would be planted in their place. Additionally, six mature oak trees, which are a protected species in the City, are located on the site. The Project would require the removal and replacement of five oak trees within the building footprint; the remaining oak tree, located on the parcel south of the Arroyo Simi Channel, would remain protected in place. The removal and replacement of these five oak trees would be conducted in accordance with the City’s Mature Tree Preservation Ordinance.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with applicable policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The Project site is not within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved conservation plan. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.

378
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-3 3

INITIAL STUDY

2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?

Introduction
The following analysis of cultural (historic and archaeological) resources is based on the Phase I Cultural Resource Report, Oak Road South Project, Simi Valley California (Phase I Report), dated January 2026 and prepared for the Project by Envicom (Envicom 2026; Appendix C to this IS).

Existing Setting
Background research was conducted on the Project site as part of the Phase I Report to est
ablish a thorough and accurate historic context, and to confirm the development history of the property. This included a historic and archaeological resources record search and literature review, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) database search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), a historical map database search, and pedestrian field surveys.

On April 9, 2024, a records search and literature review was conducted at the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton. The SCCIC houses records of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, and San Bernardino Counties. The records search included a 0.25-mile search radius around the Project site. The results of this records search are included in Appendix A of the Phase I Report (Appendix C to this IS).

The SCCIC records search did not identify any previously recorded cultural resources within the Project site or 0.25-mile search radius. The SCCIC literature review identified 12 prior cultural resources studies within the 0.25-mile search radius of the Project site. Of these 12 studies, one included the northern two parcels (APN 6370-140-450 and -460). Based on the findings of the Phase I Report, it was concluded that no cultural resources were present within the two northern parcels of the Project site. (Envicom 2026) On April 9, 2024, an SLF database search was requested from the NAHC for tribal cultural resources (TCRs) within the Project site and surrounding vicinity. The NAHC responded to this request on April 23, 2024, with negative findings. The NAHC response letter is included in Appendix B of the Phase I Report (Appendix C to this IS). 379
Environmental Checklist

2-34 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
As part of the Phase I Report, a review of historic maps and aerial photographs of the Project sit
e was conducted, as well as pedestrian field surveys of the Project site in both 2024 (APNs 6370-140-155, -450, and -460) and 2025 (APN 6370-140-325). The historic database searches and 2024 field survey were positive for a single 1940s through 1970s residential/agricultural historical archaeological site that was labeled as Oak Road 1 for this Project. The site consisted of three rectangular concrete pads and an associated scant diffusion of historic artifacts that date from the same time period. A formal State Department of Parks and Recreation site form was prepared for this cultural resource, and it has been recorded, mapped, and inventoried as part of the Phase I Report. The Oak Road 1 cultural resource was evaluated and it was recommended as not eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) under any criteria. The 2025 field survey was negative for cultural resources. No evidence of CRHR-eligible older historical sites, prehistoric sites, or historic standing structures was found on the Project site. (Envicom 2026) Envicom concluded that the "Oak Road 1” archaeological site (comprising the three concrete pads and diffuse artifacts) is not eligible for listing in the CRHR under any criteria due to a lack of prehistoric evidence, insufficient integrity of the site, and the non-unique nature of the concrete pad construction. (Envicom 2026)
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Impact. Based on the SCCIC literature reviews search and records search results, there are no documented historical resources identified on the Project site. Additionally, based on the findings of the Phase I Report, Envicom determined that the “Oak Road 1” archaeological site (comprising three concrete pads and diffuse artifacts) is not eligible for listing in the CRHR under any criteria due to a lack of prehistoric evidence, insufficient integrity of the site, and the non-unique nature of the concrete pad construction (Envicom 2026). Therefore, as no historical resources were identiXied on the Project site, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the signiXicance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact. Based on records searches and field surveys conducted on the Project site, one archaeological site (Oak Road 1) was identified within the site, which consists of three concrete pads and diffuse artifacts. As mentioned above and discussed in detail in the Phase I Report, the Oak Road 1 resource was determined ineligible for listing in the CRHR under any criteria, and the removal of this resource was determined not significant. Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Further, the City’s standard Cultural Resources Construction Protocol would be followed during Project 380
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-3 5

INITIAL STUDY
construction to ensure a significant impact would not occur in the event of an unanticipated dis
covery, including periodic spot checks by a qualified archaeologist during ground disturbance. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact. There is no indication that human remains are present within the Project site, and the findings of the Phase I Report do not indicate evidence of human remains within the 0.25-mile search radius of the site. However, the potential for construction activities to unearth previously undiscovered human remains does exist. In the event that previously undiscovered human remains are unearthed on the site, the Project would comply with existing State regulations to ensure such discovery of remains are properly handled. In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall halt and the County Coroner shall be notified. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The NAHC shall identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD), who may make recommendations regarding the treatment of the remains within 48 hours of notification. Work in the area of the find shall not resume until the remains have been treated in accordance with applicable State requirements. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure that impacts on human remains would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Project Design Features
PDF CUL-1 Cultural Resources Construction Protocol. Based on the results of the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, no historical or unique archaeological resources were identified within the Project area, and impacts to cultural resources are not anticipated. As a precautionary measure and to ensure regulatory compliance in the event of an unanticipated discovery, the following construction procedures will be implemented:
• An archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards shall conduct periodic spot-check visits during initial grading and utility trenching activities. Visits would occur upon initiation of grading and trenching phases to review the site conditions and approximately monthly thereafter, or as defined during the initial visit. The purpose of these visits is to provide professional oversight in the unlikely event that previously unidentified cultural materials are encountered. • Full-time monitoring is not proposed and would only occur if warranted by an unanticipated discovery and subject to coordination with and approval by the City.
• If potential cultural materials are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within approximately 30 feet of the find will be temporarily halted, and a qualified archaeologist will evaluate the discovery to determine its significance and recommend appropriate next 381
Environmental Checklist

2-36 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
steps consistent with applicable laws and regulations. Isolated artifacts recov
ered from previously disturbed soils that do not warrant additional evaluation may be documented and collected without requiring a construction halt. All observations, whether or not they result in further evaluation, will be documented in field notes.
• If no discoveries occur, no additional reporting beyond standard documentation would be required. In the event that materials requiring further evaluation are identified, documentation will be prepared summarizing the findings and any actions taken, as requested by the City.

382
Environmental Checklist
OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-37
IN

ITIAL STUDY

2.6 ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Introduction
The following analysis is based on the following reports, included as Appendix A to this IS:
• Oak Road Townhomes Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, City of Simi Valley, CA (AQ, GHG, and Energy Study), dated March 29, 2024 and prepared for the Project by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (RK Engineering 2024a; Appendix A-1); and
• Oak Road Residential Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Energy, and Noise Impact Study Supplemental Memorandum, City of Simi Valley, dated January 20, 2026 and prepared for the Project by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (RK Engineering 2026; Appendix A-2).

Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than Significant Impact. Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) are utility companies that currently provide and would continue to provide electrical and natural gas services to the Project site. Compliance with energy efficiency and conservation policies and regulations is discussed in this section.

Construction
Project construction would require the use of construction equipment for demolition, site prepar
ation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases activities. Construction activities would consume energy in the form of motor vehicle fuel (gas
oline and diesel) for off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicle trips. Vehicle trips include workers and vendors traveling to and from the Project site. 383
Environmental Checklist

2-38 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
Temporary electricity usage for construction activities may include lighting, electric equ
ipment, and mobile office uses. However, CalEEMod does not calculate electricity usage during construction. Electricity usage during construction is expected to be short-term and relatively minor compared to the operational demand. Therefore, construction-related electricity usage is not included in this analysis.

Appendix A provides a detailed breakdown of the Project’s energy consumption for all off- road and on-road equipment during construction. For the purposes of this analysis, all off- road equipment is assumed to run on diesel fuel. As shown below in Table 7, Energy Use During Project Construction, a total of 4,902.3 gallons of gasoline and 37,287.1 gallons of diesel fuel is estimated to be consumed during Project construction.

TABLE 7

ENERGY USE DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Source
Gasoline
(gallons)
Diesel Fuel
(gallons)
Off-Road Construction Equipment — 35,117.5
Worker Trips 4.712.3 10.7
Vendor Trips 189.8 1,968.4
Hauling Trips 0.2 190.5
Total 4,902.3 37,287.1
Source: RK Engineering 2026 (Appendix A-2).

Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and, due to this short-term demand, would not represent a significant or sustained demand on energy resources. Furthermore, there are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the State. Energy used in the construction of the Project would enable the development of buildings that meet the latest energy efficiency standards as detailed in California’s Title 24 Building Standards. Therefore, Project construction activities would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption; a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Operations
Once operational, the Project would consume energy from three primary sources: electricity, nat
ural gas, and petroleum products (gasoline and diesel fuel). The Project’s energy consumption during operations is associated with both on-site building operations and auto and truck trips generated by the proposed land uses.

Electricity would be used for operational activities including, but not limited to, space heating and cooling, interior and exterior lighting, appliances, electronics, mechanical equipment, and parking lot lighting. In addition, indirect electricity use would be required for the supply, distribution, and treatment of water and wastewater serving the Project.

Electricity service to the site would be provided by SCE. 384
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-3 9

INITIAL STUDY
Natural gas would be used primarily for building space conditioning and domestic water hea
ting. Natural gas service to the Project site would be provided by SoCalGas.

Petroleum products, in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel, would be consumed by vehicles traveling to and from the Project site. Operational vehicle trips would be generated by employees, customers, and vendors or non-workers (e.g., delivery, service, and maintenance vehicles) associated with the proposed land uses.

The Project’s estimated operational energy consumption by energy source is summarized below in Table 8.

TABLE 8

ENERGY USE DURING PROJECT OPERATIONS
Land Use
Gasoline
(gallons)
Diesel Fuel
(gallons)
Natural Gas
(kBTU/yr)
Electricity
(kWh/yr)
Project Land Uses 85,374.4 5,201.0 2,605.55 440,955.09
kBTU/yr: one thousand British Thermal Units; kWh/yr: kilowatt hours per year.

Source: RK Engineering 2026 (Appendix A-2).

The Project would comply with the mandatory requirements of California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6), which are intended to reduce overall energy consumption and minimize wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. California’s building standards are among the most stringent in the nation and are designed to reduce energy demand for space heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and mechanical systems, while promoting the use of energy-efficient technologies and renewable energy sources.

Consistent with these requirements, the Project would incorporate on-site renewable energy features, such as rooftop solar installations or other qualifying renewable energy systems, to satisfy applicable provisions of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the City of Simi Valley Climate Action Plan residential energy reduction measures. The inclusion of on-site renewable energy would reduce reliance on non-renewable energy sources and contribute to long-term energy efficiency.

Through compliance with Title 24 and incorporation of on-site renewable energy features consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan residential energy reduction measures, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operations. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. At the State level, electricity service to the Project would be provided by SCE, which is subject to 385
Environmental Checklist
2-40 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
the requirements of SB 100, requiring that 100 percent of retail electricity sales be supplied by r
enewable and zero-carbon resources by 2045 (RK Engineering 2024a). The Project would therefore be served by an electrical system that is consistent with California’s long- term renewable energy and decarbonization goals.

At the local level, the City of Simi Valley has adopted a Climate Action Plan and General Plan policies within the Community Development, Natural Resources, and Mobility and Infrastructure Elements that promote energy conservation, increased energy efficiency, electrification, and the use of renewable energy. The Project would be consistent with these plans and policies through compliance with the California Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 6 (California Building Energy Efficiency Standards) and Part 11 (California Green Building Standards Code [CALGreen]), which require that several energy-efficient features be incorporated into the Project design, including, but not limited to, low flow fixtures and toilets, water efficient irrigation systems, drought-tolerant/native landscaping, and reduced turf areas; supporting infrastructure for electric vehicle charging; and solar installations/solar readiness zones per the prescribed Energy Design Ratings.

Because the Project would comply with applicable state and local energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements, and would not interfere with or obstruct the implementation of adopted energy-related plans or policies, it would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
386
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-4 1

INITIAL STUDY

2.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault?

ii) Strong seismic groundshaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Introduction
The following analysis is based on the following reports, included as Appendix D to this IS:
• Updated Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multi-family Residential Development Oak Road Townhomes 1761-1807 Oak Road Simi Valley, California, dated November 8, 2022 and prepared by GEOCON West, Inc. (GEOCON 2022); • Update of Geotechnical Investigation Liquefaction Analysis & Percolation Test Results Proposed Multi-family Residential Development Oak Road Townhomes 1761-1807 Oak Road Simi Valley, California, dated January 31, 2024 and prepared by GEOCON West, Inc (GEOCON 2024).
• Response to Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review Letter Proposed Multi-family Residential Development Oak Road Townhomes 1761-1807 Oak Road, Simi Valley, California, dated June 9, 2025 and prepared by GEOCON West, Inc. (GEOCON 2025a);
387
Environmental Checklist

2-42 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
• Response to Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review Letter Pr
oposed Multi-family Residential Development Oak Road Townhomes 1761-1807 Oak Road, Simi Valley, California, dated August 28, 2025 and prepared by GEOCON West, Inc. (GEOCON 2025b); and
• Response to Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review Letter Proposed Multi-family Residential Development Oak Road Townhomes 1761-1807 Oak Road, Simi Valley, California, dated January 26, 2026 and prepared by GEOCON West, Inc. (GEOCON 2026).

Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? No Impact. The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The criteria for these major groups are based on criteria developed by the California Geological Survey (CGS) for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Program.

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972) and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (1990) directs the State Geologist to delineate regulatory “zones of required investigation” to assist cities, counties and state agencies (lead agencies) in fulfilling their responsibilities for protecting the public safety from the effects of earthquake-triggered ground failure. Lead agencies affected by the zones must regulate certain development “projects” within them. These Acts also require sellers of real property (and their agents) within a mapped hazard zone to disclose that the property lies within such a zone (CGS 2026).

According to the CGS Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map, the Project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone or landslide zone, but is partially located within a liquefaction zone. There are also no mapped fault traces that traverse the Project site (CGS 2026). The nearest mapped active fault zone to the Project site is the Simi-Santa Rosa Fault Zone located approximately 2.2 miles northwest (CGS 2026). Therefore, the potential for surface rupture is relatively low at this location. Lurching or cracking of the ground surface due to nearby seismic events is possible, as with all sites located within seismically active Southern California. The surface rupture of a known fault within the Project site that would result in substantial adverse effects is not considered reasonably foreseeable. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required.
ii) Strong seismic groundshaking?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in Southern California, a known seismically active region, and could be subjected to moderate to strong ground shaking in 388
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-4 3

INITIAL STUDY
the event of an earthquake on one of the many active faults. As stated in Threshold 4.7(a)(i) abov
e, no active faults are known to underlie or project towards the site and the closest fault zone is the Simi-Santa Rosa Fault Zone located approximately 2.2 miles from the site.

Consistent with its location in a seismically active region, the site may be subject to strong ground shaking resulting from a major earthquake on one or more faults in the area within the lifetime of the Project. Seismic ground shaking from major earthquakes in the region is not anticipated to be greater than at any other sites in Southern California. The potential for strong ground shaking is an existing seismic hazard that affects the site, and the Project would not exacerbate this condition. The Project would comply with applicable provisions of the most recent California Building Code (CBC) regarding seismic design and structural features to minimize the risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from strong seismic shaking.

Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact from strong seismic ground shaking, and no mitigation is required.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions.

Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations.

Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium-grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to induce liquefaction (GEOCON 2024).

The Project site is located within a State-designated liquefaction zone, as identified by the California Geological Survey (CGS 2026). Pursuant to existing regulations imposed under the California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) and the most recent CBC, the Project Applicant is required to prepare and submit a site-specific geotechnical report to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. The Updated Geotechnical Investigation and Update of Geotechnical Investigation Liquefaction Analysis & Percolation Test Results and subsequent response letters identified perched groundwater on the Project site with historic high groundwater level in the area at approximately 10 feet below the ground surface (GEOCON 2022 and 2024). A liquefaction analysis was performed for the Maximum Considered Earthquake level by using a historic high groundwater table of 10 feet below the ground surface, a magnitude 6.72 earthquake, and a peak horizontal acceleration of 0.815g 3 (PGAM). The analysis identified that the alluvial soils below the his
toric high groundwater level could be susceptible to approximately ¾ inch of total settlement during Maximum Considered Earthquake ground motion. However, the Update of Geotechnical Investigation Liquefaction Analysis & Percolation Test Results and subsequent responses prepared to address City’s comments provide site-specific

3 Peak horizontal acceleration is represented as PGAM, or maximum ground acceleration. The maximum ground shaking int
ensity is expressed in fractions of gravity (g).
389
Environmental Checklist

2-44 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
recommendations to ensure that the Project is designed and constructed to reduce seismic haz
ards to a less than significant level. Implementation of the recommendations contained in the approved site-specific geotechnical report will be required as a condition of Project approval, and the Project applicant will be required to demonstrate to the City that all applicable recommendations have been incorporated into the final Project design and implemented during grading and construction of the Project. Compliance with this existing requirement would ensure that the potential for seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be adequately addressed and impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect related to the risk of loss, injury, or death, due to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. iv) Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. Landslide hazards depend on various factors, including existing slope stability, shaking potential, and presence of existing landslides. Landslides are most common in areas of high topographic relief, such as steep canyon walls or steep hillsides. Due to the generally flat topography of the area encompassing the Project site, there are no substantial landslide hazards in area, including at the Project site. As discussed previously, according to the CGS Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map the Project site is not located within a landslide zone (CGS 2026). Due to the relatively level and limited gradient changes of the site and surrounding areas, the potential for landslides at the Project site is considered low to negligible. Therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, due to landslides. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is fully developed with three single-family residential buildings, paved concrete driveways, and associated site improvements and has a relatively flat topography. During demolition and construction activities, temporary soil erosion may occur due to soil disturbance and the removal of buildings and paved surfaces.

In addition, soil erosion due to rainfall and wind may occur if unprotected soils are exposed during construction.

The Project is subject to compliance with all applicable State and local regulations imposed to prevent erosion during and after construction. During construction, the Project would adhere to the County of Ventura NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (Order No. R4-2010-0108) (NPDES Permit No. CAS004002) requirements. These programs require the use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize soil erosion, sedimentation, and pollutant discharges during grading and site work. The Project is required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that provides erosion control, sediment control, tracking, waste management, and construction site maintenance BMPs to reduce the potential for soil and wind erosion during construction activities.
390
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-4 5

INITIAL STUDY
Additionally, as the Project site includes more than one acre of land, it would be required to obta
in an NPDES Construction General Permit from the SWRCB. In compliance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit, the Project would prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which would further specify site-specific erosion and sediment control measures, as well as inspection and maintenance protocols.

Compliance with these regulatory requirements, including the implementation of the Project-specific WQMP and SWPPP, would ensure that the Project would not result in significant impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during construction.

As discussed in more detail in Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed Project would convey stormwater runoff to a proposed private on-site underground detention/storm drain system before discharging through an outlet into the Arroyo Simi Channel. The peak runoff flow rates during proposed conditions would be less than existing conditions and would not result in additional erosion or siltation. To prevent long-term erosion, the Project site plan and tentative map would incorporate the construction of any BMPs to minimize the impervious areas and to maximize permeability and natural areas. As such, the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during construction or operation. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact. Secondary seismic hazards related to the underlying geologic unit include several types of ground failure that can occur due to severe ground shaking.

These hazards include landslides, collapse, ground lurching, shallow ground rupture, and liquefaction. The probability for each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the earthquake, the site’s distance from the fault, the local topography, and subsoil and groundwater conditions, among other factors. In addition, there can be soil engineering characteristics inherent in the underlying sediments on a site that can adversely affect structures if not appropriately managed during construction, including expansive soils.

Liquefaction and landslide are addressed above under Thresholds 2.7(a)(iii) and 2.7(a)(iv).

Lateral spreading is a liquefaction-related phenomenon; therefore, the above analysis in Threshold 2.7(a)(iii) would also apply to this secondary seismic hazard.

Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas, or through other methods such as earthquakes, soil compaction, erosion, sinkhole formation, and the saturation of soils with water. No large-scale extraction of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy is occurring or planned at the site or in the general site vicinity, and therefore no significant impacts related to subsidence would occur.

Dynamic compaction of dry and loose sands may occur during a major earthquake. Typically, settlements occur in thick beds of such soils. According to the Update of Geotechnical Investigation Liquefaction Analysis & Percolation Test Results (GEOCON 2024), onsite soils may be prone to approximately 0.01 inches of settlement as a result of seismic activity, which 391
Environmental Checklist

2-46 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
is considered negligible. Therefore, a less than significant impact related to seismic-induced set
tlement would occur.

As noted previously, the Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the CBC and required to implement the recommendations provided in the Project-specific geotechnical report. Compliance with existing State and local regulations, including the preparation of a site-specific geotechnical report and implementation of all identified recommendations, would ensure that any potential impacts related to unstable geologic conditions are less than significant. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. The Project is located within an area designated by the City of Simi Valley as having a “moderate” potential for expansive soils (City of Simi Valley 2021). Additionally, the encountered near surface soils consist primarily of silty clay and sandy clay. The recommendations presented herein assume that the foundations and slabs will derive support in materials with a “medium” expansion potential. Implementation of the recommendations contained in the approved site-specific geotechnical report will be required as a condition of Project approval, and the Project applicant will be required to demonstrate to the City that all applicable recommendations have been incorporated into the final Project design and implemented during grading and construction of the Project. Compliance with this existing requirement would ensure that the potential for risk associated with expansive soils would be adequately addressed and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems is not proposed by the Project. Therefore, no impact would result, and no mitigation is required. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact. The following analysis of paleontological resources is based on the Phase I Cultural Resource Report, Oak Road South Project, Simi Valley California (Phase I Report), dated January 2026 and prepared for the Project by Envicom (Envicom 2026; Appendix C to this IS).

Based on historic geological maps, the Project site is located within recent alluvial material (Qa), which is not fossil-bearing. Geotechnical borings associated with the Project confirmed alluvial soils to the base of any potential Project grading and utility excavation. 392
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-4 7

INITIAL STUDY
A record search request was submitted to the NHMLAC on April 9, 2024, with a request to sea
rch their database for fossil materials that have been found on the Project properties or within the surrounding study area. The NHMLAC response was received on April 22, 2024, with negative findings for the Project properties. The NHMLAC did identify six fossil locations within the nearby Simi Hills, all of which were within sensitive bedrock formations.

However, none of these discoveries were within the recent alluvial material that dominates the Project site and are, consequently, not relevant for determining further paleontological work associated with the proposed Project.

The paleontological assessment of the proposed Project is, therefore, negative for fossil resources on or near the Project properties. No further paleontological studies are recommended for the project as the dominant recent alluvial soils on the properties are considered to not be sensitive for fossil resources. Paleontological monitoring is also not recommended. Nevertheless, while paleontological resources are not anticipated to be discovered during excavations, if grading activities encounter unknown paleontological resources, as a condition of the Project the City will require that all work in the area be stopped until a qualified paleontologist can be consulted. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

393
Environmental Checklist
2-48 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY

2.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Introduction
The following analysis is based on the following reports, included as Appendix A to this IS:
• Oak Road Townhomes Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, City of Simi Valley, CA (AQ, GHG, and Energy Study), dated March 29, 2024 and prepared for the Project by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (RK Engineering 2024a; Appendix A-1); and
• Oak Road Residential Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Energy, and Noise Impact Study Supplemental Memorandum, City of Simi Valley, dated January 20, 2026 and prepared for the Project by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (RK Engineering 2026; Appendix A-2).

For this analysis, the results are expressed in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/yr).

Existing Setting
Global climate change is the change in the average weather of the earth that is measured by such t
hings as alterations in temperature, wind patterns, storms, and precipitation. Current data show that the recent period of warming is occurring more rapidly than in past geological events. The average global surface temperature has increased by approximately 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since the early twentieth century. While 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit may seem like a small change, it is an unusual event in Earth's recent history; even seemingly small increases in temperature can cause enormous changes in the environment (RK Engineering 2024a).

The planet’s climate record, preserved in tree rings, ice cores, and coral reefs, shows that the global average temperature has been stable over long periods of time. For example, at the end of the last ice age, when the area now known as the northeastern United States was covered by more than 3,000 feet of ice, average global temperatures were only 5 degrees to 9 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than today. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 degrees to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. 394
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-4 9

INITIAL STUDY
Therefore, significant changes to the environment are expected in the near future. (RK Eng
ineering 2024a)
The consequences of global climate change include more frequent and severe weather, worsening air pollution through increased ground level ozone, higher rates of plant and animal extinction, more acidic and oxygen-depleted oceans, strain on food and water resources, and threats to densely populated coastal and low lying areas from sea level rise (RK Engineering 2024a).

The impacts of climate change are already visible in the southwestern United States. In California, the consequences of climate change include (RK Engineering 2024a):
• A rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences • A reduction in the quality and supply of water from the Sierra snowpack • Increased risk of large wildfires
• Exacerbation of air quality problems
• Reductions in the quality and quantity of agricultural products • An increased temperature and extreme weather events
• A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests Greenhouse Gases
GHGs comprise less than 0.1 percent of the total atmospheric composition, yet they play an ess
ential role in influencing climate. Greenhouse gases include naturally occurring compounds such as carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), water vapor (H 2O), and nitrous oxid
e (N 2O), while others are synthetic. Human-made GHGs include chlorofluorocarbons (CF
Cs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), as well as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Different GHGs have different effects on the Earth's warming. GHGs differ from
each other in their ability to absorb energy (their "radiative efficiency") and how long they stay in the atmosphere, also known as the "lifetime" (RK Engineering 2024a).

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of CO2. The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 ov
er that time-period. The time-period usually used for GWPs is 100 years. GWPs provi
de a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases. (RK Engineering 2024a)
395
Environmental Checklist

2-50 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
Regulatory Background
The State of California has been a leader in climate change legislation and has passed nume
rous bills to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of the economy. Some of the key climate legislation and regulation in the State include the following (RK Engineering 2024a):
• Assembly Bill 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 set the stage for the State’s transition to a sustainable, low-carbon future. AB 32 was the first program in the country to take a comprehensive, long-term approach to addressing climate change.
• Senate Bill 375, Sustainable Communities & Climate Protection Act of 2008. SB 375 requires the Air Resources Board to develop regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles GHG reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by the State's 18 metropolitan planning organizations. • Senate Bill 100, California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. SB 100 established a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of electric retail sales to end-use customers by 2045.3 • California Building Standards Code – Title 24. The California Building Standards Code Title 24 Part 6 (Energy Code) and Title 24 Part 11 (CALGreen) requires multiple building provisions to reduce energy usage and GHG emissions and is updated on a triennial basis.

Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. Project GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, which is designed to model construction and operational emissions for land development projects and allows for the input of project- and City-specific information.

Greenhouse gas emissions are estimated for on-site and off-site construction activity using CalEEMod. Table 9 shows the construction greenhouse gas emissions, including equipment and worker vehicle emissions for all phases of construction. 396
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-5 1

INITIAL STUDY
TABLE 9
CON

STRUCTION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Activity
Emissions
(MTCO2e)1
Onsite Offsite Total
Demolition 31.18 3.76 34.94
Site Preparation 24.10 1.06 25.16
Grading 26.93 1.81 28.74
Building Construction 251.78 51.31 303.09
Paving 13.76 1.78 15.54
Architectural Coating 1.22 0.51 1.73
Total 348.97 60.23 409.20
Amortized over 30 years2 11.63 2.01 13.64
1 MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and/or hyd
rofluorocarbons).
2 The emissions are amortized over an assumed Project lifespan of 30 years and added to the operational emissions.

Sou
rce: RK Engineering 2026 (Appendix A-2).

Because impacts from construction activities occur over a relatively short period of time, they contribute a relatively small portion of the overall lifetime project GHG emissions.

Therefore, construction GHG impacts are assessed by amortizing emissions over a 30-year project lifetime and adding them to the overall project operational emissions.

Greenhouse gas emissions are estimated for on-site and off-site operational activity using CalEEMod. Table 10 shows the project’s operational greenhouse gas emissions, along with the Project’s amortized construction emissions.

TABLE 10

OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Emission Source GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr.)1
Mobile Sources 695.04
Area Sources 0.75
Energy Sources 240.89
Water 7.47
Waste 15.08
Refrigerant 0.13
Construction (30-Year Amortization) 13.64
Total Annual Emissions 973.00
1 MTCO2e/yr. = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year.

Sou
rce: RK Engineering 2026 (Appendix A-2).

In June 2012, the City of Simi Valley adopted the City of Simi Valley Climate Action Plan (CAP).

This plan was developed to provide a framework that is consistent and complimentary to the GHG reduction efforts being conducted by the State through AB 32. 397
Environmental Checklist
2-52 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
According to the City’s CAP, projects which are consistent with the CAP can be presumed to be con
sistent with other relevant plans aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Consistent with City and CEQA guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. As discussed below under Threshold

2.8b, the Project would be consistent with the CAP; therefore, the Project is assumed to also have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions.

Furthermore, the Project is subject to compliance with all existing State and local regulations pertaining to energy efficiency and solid waste reduction to ensure that all development reduces contributions to greenhouse gas emissions in support of meeting State and local goals. This includes compliance with the mandatory requirements of the California Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 6 (Energy Code) and Part 11 (CALGreen Code), including, but not limited to, installing low-flow fixtures and toilets, water-efficient irrigation systems, drought-tolerant/native landscaping, and reduced turf areas; providing necessary infrastructure to support electric vehicle charging; and providing solar installations/solar-readiness zones per the prescribed Energy Design Ratings. Additionally, the Project would comply with the City’s mandatory waste, recycling, and organics collection requirements pursuant to the SVMC, which are established in accordance with State solid waste laws (e.g., AB 341 and AB 1826) and require participation in municipal recycling and organics diversion programs to reduce landfill disposal. Compliance with these existing State and local regulations would further ensure that the Project would minimize energy consumption, reduce indirect GHG emissions, and avoid generating substantial additional GHG emissions beyond those already accounted for in Statewide regulatory programs, resulting in a less than significant impact.”
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Simi Valley Climate Action Plan (CAP), adopted in June 2012, establishes emission reduction targets consistent with the state law and the City’s planning priorities. Projects which are consistent with the CAP can be presumed to be consistent with other relevant plans aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Consistent with City and CEQA guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.

The City’s CAP establishes a variety of measures that are to be implemented at the City level in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the community as a whole. City-level measures are divided into two categories: R2 measures, which can be quantified to show the value of the reduction from those measures, and R3 measures, which cannot be quantified but are supportive to the R2 measures. The proposed Project’s consistency to the applicable residential GHG reduction measures outlined in the City’s CAP is summarized in Table 11 below.
398
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-5 3

INITIAL STUDY
TABLE 11
PRO

JECT CONSISTENCY WITH

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN

Reduction Measure Project Consistency
Energy Reduction Measures
R2-E1
Residential Energy Efficiency Program
Consistent. The Project will be required to comply
to the latest Title 24 regulations for Building Energy
Efficiency, which are designed to reduce the amount
of energy needed to heat or cool a building, reduce
energy usage for lighting and appliances, and
promote usage of energy from renewable sources.

R2-E2
Residential Renewable Energy Program
Consistent. The Project will be required to comply to
the latest Title 24 regulations for Building Energy
Efficiency, including providing the necessary
infrastructure to support electric vehicle charging
and providing solar installations (or other sources
of on-site renewable energy) per the prescribed
Energy Design Ratings.

R2-E3
Residential Retrofit Implementation Program
Not Applicable. The proposed Project consists of
new townhouse dwelling units and does not include
any residential buildings undergoing major
renovations.

R2-E4
Residential Renewable Retrofit Program
Not Applicable. The proposed Project consists of
new townhouse dwelling units and does not include
any residential buildings undergoing major
renovations.

R2-E8
Water Use Reduction Initiative
Consistent. The Project will be required to comply
with the mandatory water conservation and
efficiency measures outlined in the City’s CAP as well
as the water reduction methods included in the
CALGreen Code and City Ordinance 1167.

Solid Waste Measures
R2-W1
City Diversion Program
Consistent. The Project will comply with all current
City programs for solid waste diversion during
Project construction and operation and include
recycling infrastructure as part of the Project.

R2-W2
Construction Diversion Program
Transportation Measures
R2-T1
Anti-Idling Enforcement
Consistent. All heavy-duty diesel trucks used for
Project construction and operation will comply with
current State law prohibiting excessive idling,
defined as idling for five minutes or longer.

Source: RK Engineering 2024a (Appendix A-1).

399
Environmental Checklist
2-54 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
Based on the above consistency analysis, through compliance with existing State and local regu
lations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, and the impact is considered less than significant.
400
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-5 5

INITIAL STUDY

2.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. Demolition and construction activities for the proposed Project would involve the use of chemical substances such as solvents, paints, fuel for equipment, and other potentially hazardous materials. Hazards to the environment or the public would typically occur with the transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. Demolition and construction activities would be relatively short-term and the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials as part of these activities would utilize small quantities and be temporary. The contractor would be required to comply with existing regulations for the transport, use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials to prevent public safety hazards. These regulations include the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, California Hazardous Waste Control Act, and California Accidental Release Prevention Program, among others. 401
Environmental Checklist

2-56 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
Once operational, the Project would consist of residential land uses and would not include land
uses associated with the use, transportation, storage, or generation of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Nevertheless, the Project would potentially utilize typical hazardous materials such as paint, pesticides, cleansers, and solvents for routine maintenance activities, and any use would be in limited quantities typical for residential uses. The Project would not utilize, store, or generate hazardous materials or wastes in quantities that would pose a significant hazard to the public. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would involve the use of common hazardous substances such as petroleum-based fuels and hydraulic fluid. However, the level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances during construction is considered low due to the small volume of hazardous materials that would be used during construction. Hazardous substances required for construction would be handled, transported, and/or disposed of in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws.

Compliance with these existing regulations would prevent reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the use of such substances.

Operation of the Project would not involve the transport, use, or disposal of copious quantities of hazardous materials. The use of hazardous materials on the Project site post- construction would consist of those commonly used in a residential setting for routine maintenance and cleaning. Proper handling while using and disposing of hazardous materials would reduce the potential for exposure. Therefore, through adherence to the General Plan policies and programs, and with application of local, State, and federal regulations related to hazardous materials, no significant impacts associated with creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would occur.

As such, construction and operation of the Project would not involve the release of hazardous materials into the environment that would create a significant hazard to the public or environment. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There are no existing or proposed schools located within one-quarter mile of the Project site. As discussed under Threshold 2.9(b), construction activities would involve the limited use of fuels, oils, and other materials typical of construction equipment operation and maintenance. These materials would be handled in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and standard construction practices. 402
Environmental Checklist
OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-57
IN

ITIAL STUDY
Operational activities would involve only the use of common household materials such as paint
s, cleaning products, and landscaping products for routine maintenance and would not generate hazardous emissions or involve the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials in quantities that would pose a risk to sensitive receptors. The Project would be consistent with surrounding residential land uses. Because no schools are located within one-quarter mile of the Project site, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials within proximity to a school. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact . Based on review of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List) (DTSC 2026), and the State Water Resource Control Board’s GeoTracker database (SWRCB 2026), the Project site is not included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 (CalEPA 2026). Furthermore, according to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) dated January 17, 2022 and prepared for the Project by Hillmann Consulting (Hillmann Consulting 2022; Appendix E), no recognized environmental conditions were found on the site or within the immediate vicinity. Therefore, the Project does not have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to presence of an existing hazardous materials site identified on the Cortese List. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The Project site is not located within two miles of an airport. The nearest airport is the Van Nuys Airport which is located approximately 11.6 miles southeast of the Project site. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Simi Valley 2001 SEMS Multi-Hazard Emergency Plan, also referred to as the City’s Emergency Operations Plan, describes the City's emergency response actions, including evacuation procedures, in the event of emergency situations associated with natural disasters and other hazards, including a hazardous materials incident, earthquake, flooding, dam failure, and wildfire (City of Simi Valley 2001).

No roads would be permanently closed during construction or operation of the Project.

During construction of the Project, emergency access to and from the site would be maintained at all times. Additionally, the Project would improve on-site emergency access and egress through inclusion of a dedicated fire access lane along the existing Oak Road and the proposed private streets serving the future residential development. The Project would 403
Environmental Checklist

2-58 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
not involve the development of structures that could potentially impair implementation of or ph
ysically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

The site is currently accessible from East Los Angeles Avenue via Oak Road, a private street.

The Project’s roadway improvements would take place on a private street not commonly accessible to the general public, not within a public right-of-way. Once operational, the Project would provide adequate emergency access to and from the site and would neither impair implementation of nor physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in a highly urbanized area of the City, and there are no large, undeveloped areas and/or steep slopes on or near the site that may pose wildfire hazards. As discussed in detail in Section 2.20, Wildfire, the Project site is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or within a State Responsibility Area, as determined by CAL FIRE. Rather, based on correspondence received from the Ventura County Fire Protection District (VCFPD), the Project site is located in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (HFHSZ) in a Local Responsibility Area, and the VCFPD is primary agency responsible for providing fire protection services to the site (VCFDFPB 2026). All Project structures are required to be constructed in compliance with all applicable state and local regulations, including the 2025 California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code, and all applicable VCFPD codes, ordinances, and standards. As previously discussed, the Project includes dedicated fire access lanes designed in compliance with the County’s Public Road Standards and Ventura County Fire Code, including a minimum access width of 24 feet and a 2.5-foot easement on each side of the access lane to allow for curbs and fire lane signage.

Therefore, implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss or death associated wildland fires. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

404
Environmental Checklist
OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-59
IN

ITIAL STUDY

2.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project impede sustainable groundwater management of
the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Introduction
The following analysis is primarily based on the Preliminary Drainage Report (Drainage Report) dated November 2025 and prepared for the Project by C&V Consulting, Inc. (C&V) (C&V 2025). The Drainage Report is included as Appendix F to this IS.

Existing Setting
The Project site is within the Upper Arroyo Simi watershed. Under existing conditions, runoff from t
he site flows southwest to the southwest corner of the site where it discharges to the VCFCD Arroyo Simi Channel to the south. There are no existing connections to the Arroyo Simi Channel, so surface runoff likely flows through the existing chain link fence and over the Channel walls. After entering the Channel, flows from the site are carried west to a confluence at Calleguas Creek and ultimately discharge to the Pacific Ocean though an estuary at Mugu Lagoon.
405
Environmental Checklist

2-60 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
Existing pervious coverage consists of vegetation, trees, grass and turf areas, playgrounds, and
landscaped medians. Off-site run-ons from the property to the north are also present through Oak Road along the northeast corner and through the existing screen wall along the northwest corner of the site. These additional flows also flow south where they are similarly discharged at the Arroyo Simi Channel.

Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project would involve demolition of the existing residential buildings and associated site improvements, in addition to construction of the proposed residences and site improvements. Therefore, the Project has the potential to result in short-term construction impacts to surface water quality from demolition, grading, and construction-related activities. Stormwater runoff from the construction site would contain loose soils, organic matter, and sediments. Spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery, such as fuel, oil, and grease, and heavy metals, could also enter the runoff. Building construction would involve the use of hazardous materials (e.g., paints, solvents, cleansers) that, if not properly handled, may enter the stormwater runoff.

The Clean Water Act establishes a framework for regulating potential water quality impacts from construction activities, as well as new development and major redevelopment, through the NPDES program. Construction activities that disturb one acre or more of land are required to obtain an NPDES permit or coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit. As the Project would disturb more than one acre, coverage under the Construction General Permit is required. In compliance with the Construction General Permit, during construction, the Project would implement various erosion and sediment controls, pollution prevention measures, and stabilizing controls outlined in the Project-specific SWPPP, in addition to BMPs contained in the Project-specific WQMP, to reduce stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Through compliance with the NPDES General Construction Permit, including implementation of all BMPs as outlined in the Project-specific SWPPP, the Project would not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality during construction.

Stormwater pollutants generated by the Project in the long-term would include sediment, trash and debris, oil and grease, bacterial indicators, nutrients, pesticides, and pet waste that would be transported with storm runoff from landscaped areas, metal roofing, drive aisles, and parking areas. In accordance with the NPDES program, a WQMP will be prepared for the Project in compliance with the requirements of the County of Ventura NPDES Permit (Order No. R4-2010-0108) (NPDES Permit No. CAS004002). The WQMP would be subject to City review and approval prior to construction and operation of the Project. Additionally, the use of hazardous materials (e.g., cleaning solvents, pesticides, fertilizers, paint, oil, and grease) 406
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-6 1

INITIAL STUDY
would be in limited quantities and in accordance with existing regulations, as discussed in Secti
on 2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Therefore, with preparation of the Project- specific WQMP and implementation of identified features and BMPs, the Project would not result in significant soil, surface water, or groundwater contamination during operations. As such, the Project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during construction or operations. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project impedes sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is underlain by the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin, which is bound by the Santa Susana Mountains and the Simi fault to the north and the Simi Hills to the south. Percolation of direct precipitation, inflow of minor streams, minor subsurface inflow from surrounding semi-permeable formations, and irrigation return provide recharge to the basin (DWR 2004). Under proposed conditions, the Project would construct four sump areas to collect and convey stormwater runoff to a proposed private on- site underground detention/storm drain system. A diversion structure would be installed to help route detained water from the proposed underground detention basin to a modular wetlands system (MWS) biofiltration vault where it would be treated before discharging through an outlet into the Arroyo Simi Channel, which is a groundwater recharge area.

Although the Project would increase the amount of impervious area from existing conditions, the proposed stormwater collection and conveyance system would allow captured stormwater to continue to percolate into the underlying groundwater aquifer. Additionally, the water supply serving the Project site would be comprised of treated surface water purchased from the Calleguas Municipal Water District, which obtains its supply from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. This water supply is supplemented with Simi Valley Groundwater Basin groundwater, but that is not the primary source (GSWC 2026). Therefore, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with recharge, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less than Significant Impact. As indicated under Threshold 2.10a, the Project would be required to comply with all BMPs as outlined in the WQMP and SWPPP, which were prepared in compliance with the NPDES program. Compliance with the WQMP and SWPPP would provide erosion control, sediment control, tracking, waste management, and construction site maintenance BMPs to reduce the potential for soil and wind erosion during construction activities. With compliance with the required WQMP and BMPs, construction-related erosion would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 407
Environmental Checklist

2-62 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
As stated above, under existing conditions, stormwater runoff from the site flows in sout
hwest direction into the Arroyo Simi Channel where it is carried west toward a confluence at Calleguas Creek, ultimately discharging into the Pacific Ocean though an estuary at Mugu Lagoon. Under proposed conditions, the Project would construct four sump areas to collect and convey stormwater runoff to a proposed private on-site underground detention/storm drain system. Project grading has been designed to match existing joining conditions along the north and east of the Project site due to access requirements. A diversion structure would be installed to help route detained water from the proposed underground detention basin to a modular wetlands system biofiltration vault where it would be treated before discharging through an outlet into the Arroyo Simi Channel. The diversion structure has been designed to include a weir wall with an orifice to mitigate the flows to the existing 10-year storm event. In the event of the 100-year storm event, the excess flows would spill over the weir wall and eventually drain into the Arroyo Simi Channel. Additionally, a flap gate would be installed at the outlet towards the Channel to ensure there is no backwater flows to the site. Pursuant to the City’s drainage requirements, the proposed 100-year peak flow rate for the Project site would be designed to the existing (allowable) 10-year peak flow rate, and the Project would not result in additional erosion or siltation.

The Project’s proposed stormwater capture and detention system would prevent runoff from substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. As such, the Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation during operations. Operation-related erosion would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
Less than Significant Impact. As stated above, the Project would install an underground infiltration basin which would be designed to reduce the 100-year storm event to the existing 10-year storm event, per City and Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD) requirements. The Project has been designed overall to reduce or match historic drainage conditions, including peak flow rates, volume mitigation, and discharge locations. As such, the Project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or offsite or exceed capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has prepared flood insurance rate maps for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program. The Project site is included on FEMA Flood Map Panel No. 06111C0868E, effective date January 20, 20101, which indicates the Project site is partially located within Flood Zone X (area of minimal flood hazard) and Zone AE (subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual 408
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-6 3

INITIAL STUDY
chance or 100-year flood) (C&V 2025). A Letter of Map Revision was issued with an effective dat
e of July 23, 2023, which adjusted the floodplain areas based on a recent evaluation of the Arroyo-Simi Channel and tributary areas and peak flow rates. As part of Project design, the lowest finish floor elevation of the proposed Project structures would be designed to be one foot above the 100-year water surface elevation to provide flood protection for all habitable structures. As discussed previously, stormwater runoff would be conveyed to a proposed private on-site underground detention/storm drain system. A diversion structure would be installed to help route detained water from the proposed underground detention basin to a modular wetlands system biofiltration vault where it would be treated before discharging through an outlet into the Arroyo Simi Channel. The diversion structure has been designed to accommodate a 10-year storm event. In the event of the 100-year storm event, the excess flows would spill over the weir wall and eventually drain into the Arroyo Simi Channel. This would reduce the potential for flooding to occur as a result of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant impact associated with impeding or redirecting flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than Significant Impact. As previously stated, the Project site is included on FEMA Flood Map Panel No. 06111C0868E, effective date January 20, 20101, which indicates the Project site is partially located within Flood Zone X (area of minimal flood hazard) and Zone AE (subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance or 100-year flood) (C&V 2025). A Letter of Map Revision was issued with an effective date of July 23, 2023, which adjusted the floodplain areas based on a recent evaluation of the Arroyo-Simi Channel and tributary areas and peak flow rates.; however, Project structures would be constructed to be one foot above the 100-year water surface elevation to provide flood protection for all habitable structures.

Through design features and compliance with the Project-specific WQMP, the potential for the Project to result in the release of pollutants due to Project inundation would be less than significant.

Tsunamis are waves generated by massive landslides near or under sea water. The site is not located on any State of California Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning. The potential for the site to be adversely impacted by earthquake-induced tsunamis is considered to be negligible due to the distance from the site to the shore of the Pacific Ocean.

Seiches are standing wave oscillations of an enclosed water body after the original driving force has dissipated. The potential for the site to be adversely impacted by earthquake- induced seiches is considered to be low due to the lack of any significant enclosed bodies of water located in the vicinity of the site. There are no hillside areas on site or in the surrounding area that could generate mudflow. As a result, no impacts related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur.
409
Environmental Checklist

2-64 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sus
tainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed previously under Threshold 2.10(a), stormwater pollutants generated by the Project in the long-term would include sediment, trash and debris, oil and grease, bacterial indicators, nutrients, and pesticides from landscaped areas and pet waste, metal roofing, cars, drive aisles, and parking areas. In accordance with the NPDES program, a WQMP will be prepared for the Project in compliance with the requirements of the County of Ventura NPDES Permit (Order No. R4-2010-0108) (NPDES Permit No. CAS004002). The WQMP would be subject to City review and approval prior to construction and operation of the Project. Additionally, the use of hazardous materials (e.g., cleaning solvents, pesticides, fertilizers, paint, oil, and grease) would be in limited quantities and in accordance with existing regulations, as discussed in Section 2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Therefore, with preparation of the Project-specific WQMP and implementation of identified features and BMPs, the Project would not result in significant soil, surface water, or groundwater contamination during operations.

Additionally, a discussed previously under Threshold 2.10(b), the water supply serving the Project site would be comprised of treated surface water purchased from the Calleguas Municipal Water District, which obtains its supply from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. This water supply is supplemented with Simi Valley Groundwater Basin groundwater, but that is not the primary source (GSWC 2026).

As such, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

410
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-6 5

INITIAL STUDY

2.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?

Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less than Significant Impact. One of the primary factors in considering division of an established community is whether the Project would create any physical barriers that change the connectivity between areas of a community. As stated in Section 1.0, Project Information, the Project site is located within a highly urbanized portion of the City of Simi Valley, which primarily includes single- and multi-family residential uses. The Project site is bound by a vacant commercial lot to the north (planned for the future development of townhomes); a mobile home park to the east; single-family residences to the south; and multi-family townhomes to the west. Other dominant land uses within the Project vicinity include the Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD) Station 43 located to the north; and commercial shopping plazas located to the northwest. The Project would demolish two existing single-family residences as well as existing landscaping and hardscape features, on APNs 637-0-140-155, -460, and -450, and develop the site with 57 single-family detached homes and 3 attached very low-income affordable units. The proposed residential uses would be consistent with surrounding uses which include a mix of single- and multi-family residential and commercial uses and would not create any physical barriers or connectivity issues. Additionally, the Project would improve pedestrian connectivity throughout the site through the provision of 4-foot-wide walkways along the proposed private streets.

Therefore, the Project would not divide or disrupt the physical arrangement of the existing adjacent residential neighborhoods. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
c) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential and Moderate Density Residential and is zoned for Residential Medium Density and Residential Moderate Density. The Project proposes a GPA and ZC to amend the General Plan land use designation to High Density Residential and 411
Environmental Checklist

2-66 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
the zoning designation to Residential High Density. The Project has been designed in accord
ance with the development standards and requirements of the High Density Residential land use and Residential High Density zoning designations. According to SVMC Section 9-24.020, the Residential High Density zoning district is intended for areas of more compact multi-family residential developments, such as townhouses, garden apartments, and other multiple-unit dwellings, with densities ranging from 10.1 to 20 du/acre. The Project would result in a residential density of 13.58 du/acre on the site. Once approved, the Project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the site.

Furthermore, the proposed land use and zoning designations of the site would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the surrounding uses. As such, with the approval of the requested GPA and ZC, the Project would not introduce incompatible development to the site or surrounding area, nor would it conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

412
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-6 7

INITIAL STUDY

2.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Less than Significant Impact. According to Figure 4.11-2 of the City of Simi Valley General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the Project site is designated as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-1, indicating that no significant mineral deposits are present (City of Simi Valley 2012b). Areas designated as MRZ-2, which identify locations of known or potentially significant mineral resources, are limited within the City and are not located on or near the Project site. The Project site is developed with residential uses and is not located within or adjacent to areas designated for mineral resource extraction, including construction aggregate resources or oil and gas resources. Review of the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR) Mines Online database and the California Geologic Energy Management Division’s (CalGEM) Well Finder indicates that there are no active or inactive mines or oil and gas wells on or near the Project site (DMR 2026; CalGEM 2026). Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known or locally important mineral resource. Impacts related to mineral resources would be less than significant.

413
Environmental Checklist

2-68 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY

2.13 NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Introduction
The following analysis is based on the following reports:
• Oak Road Townhomes Project Noise Impact Study, City of Simi Valley, CA (AQ, GHG, and Energy Study), dated March 29, 2024 and prepared for the Project by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (RK Engineering 2024b; Appendix G); and • Oak Road Residential Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Energy, and Noise Impact Study Supplemental Memorandum, City of Simi Valley, dated January 20, 2026 and prepared for the Project by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (RK Engineering 2026; Appendix A-2).

For purposes of the noise analysis, the nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the Project site include the following (RK Engineering 2024b):
• Receptor-1. Existing Crest Mobile Home Village located approximately 16 feet east of the eastern boundary of the Project site, approximately 455 feet south of the centerline of East Los Angeles Avenue.
• Receptor-2. Existing residential land uses located a minimum of approximately 39 feet south-southeast of the southeastern corner of the proposed project site, approximately 1,040 feet south of the centerline of East Los Angeles Avenue. • Receptor-3. Existing Sage Creek Apartment Homes located along the western boundary of the Project site, approximately 250 feet south of the centerline of East Los Angeles Avenue.
414
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-6 9

INITIAL STUDY
Impact Analysis
Would the Project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact.

To determine the existing noise level environment, RK Engineering conducted two 1-hour noise measurements near the Project site and adjacent residential noise receptors.

The City of Simi Valley has established noise level thresholds in terms of the ambient community noise equivalent level (CNEL). To establish existing ambient noise levels at the nearby receptors, the existing ambient CNEL is estimated using the results of the one-hour, short-term measurements. The CNEL is estimated based on typical hourly traffic distribution patterns to predict noise levels over a 24-hour period.

The noise monitoring locations were selected based on the proximity and location of adjacent sensitive receptors.
• Noise Monitoring Location 1 (L-1) was taken near the western boundary of the Project site, approximately 295 feet west of the centerline of Oak Road. • Noise Monitoring Location 2 (L-2) was taken near the eastern boundary of the Project site, approximately 16 feet west of the centerline of Oak Road.

Noise measurements were conducted at the above-selected locations to determine the existing ambient noise environment at the nearby sensitive receptors. Ambient noise sources during the measurement period consisted of minimal roadway noise from adjacent streets, occasional overhead planes, and general residential activity.

Results of the short-term ambient noise measurements are shown in Tables 12 and 13.

415
Environmental Checklist

2-70 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
TABLE 12
SHO
RT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS (DBA) – L-11

Start Time Stop Time Leq Lmax Lmin L2 L8 L25 L50 CNEL2
1:04 PM 2:04 PM 46.6 66.5 38.0 54.2 50.1 46.1 43.4 49.9 1 L-1 was measured on 03/19/2024.
2 CNEL estimated based on measured hourly Leq.

Sou
rce: RK Engineering 2024b (Appendix G).

TABLE 13
SHO
RT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS (DBA) – L-21

Start Time Stop Time Leq Lmax Lmin L2 L8 L25 L50 CNEL2
1:02 PM 2:02 PM 48.2 67.1 39.6 55.7 51.3 47.6 45.2 51.5 1 L-1 was measured on 03/19/2024.
2 CNEL estimated based on measured hourly Leq.

Sou
rce: RK Engineering 2024b (Appendix G).

As shown in Tables 12 and 13, the existing ambient noise levels at the Project site range from

49.9 dBA CNEL to 51.5 dBA CNEL. These noise levels fall within the Normally Acceptable land use compatibility category prescribed in the City’s General Plan.

The analysis in this section is divided into the following categories: on- and off-site construction noise, operational noise, and long-term off-site noise generated by Project traffic.

Construction Noise
Temporary construction noise and vibration impacts have been assessed from the Project sit
e to the surrounding adjacent land uses. The degree of construction noise and vibration will vary depending on the type of construction activity taking place and the location of the activity relative to the surrounding properties.

During the construction period, the contractors will be required to comply with the City of Simi Valley Municipal Code Chapter 16 – Noise. Per the Municipal Code, the following construction-related activities shall be prohibited within the City:
“The erection, excavation, demolition, alteration, construction, or repair of any structure of building, other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., except when the urgent necessity, in the interests of the public health and safety, requires and the City Engineer consents thereto. When substantial loss or inconvenience would result to any party denied permission to do so, the City Engineer may grand permission for such work on any day or at 416
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-7 1

INITIAL STUDY
such times within such hours and on such conditions as he or she shall fix in accordance with his
or her findings.”
No Project-related construction will occur during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The City of Simi Valley does not establish specific noise level thresholds for construction activity during approved hours. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) criteria will be used. The FTA provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential for adverse community reaction. For residential uses, the daytime noise threshold is 90 dBA Leq for a 1-hour period. In compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, it is assumed construction would not occur during the noise-sensitive nighttime hours.

This assessment analyzes potential noise impacts of the two noisiest pieces of equipment during all expected phases of construction, including demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Noise levels are calculated based on an average distance of equipment over a 1-hour period to the nearest adjacent property. The project’s estimated construction noise levels have been calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model Version 1.1. Table 14 shows the noise level impacts from the center of the nearest plot to the nearest sensitive receptor property line.

TABLE 14
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS – AT 162 FEET

Phase Equipment Quantity
Equipment
Noise Level at
162 ft
(dBA Leq)
Combined
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws _———————————————
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 ———————
1 79.4 ————————

71.5 80.0
Site
Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 73.8 76.8
Grading Graders ————————————————
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 ———————
1 74.8 ————————

73.8 77.3
Building
Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 73.8 76.8
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ————————————————
Rollers
1 ———————
1 73.8 ————————

69.8 75.2
Architectural
Coating Air Compressors 1 67.5 67.5
Worst Case Construction Phase Noise Level (dBA Leq) 80.0 FTA Daytime General Assessment Construction Noise Criteria (dBA Leq)1 90.0 Noise level exceeds FTA criteria? No
Source: RK Engineering 2024b (Appendix G).

417
Environmental Checklist
2-72 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
The Project is expected to generate a maximum noise level of 80.0 dBA. Based on the above
table, the Project’s construction-related noise levels will not exceed the FTA General Assessment Construction Noise Criteria threshold. Hence, the impact from construction-related noise levels would be less than significant.

Operational Noise
Operational noise sources associated with the proposed Project would include landscape maint
enance equipment, vehicles travelling on local roads, HVAC equipment, and trash collection. Future landscaping and trash collection activities associated with the Project would be similar to such activities already occurring in the vicinity of the Project site and would not noticeably alter the noise environment. Additionally, in compliance with the California Building Standards Code (Title 24), the Project would incorporate building construction techniques and sound-rated insulation sufficient to achieve the minimum interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for all residential units.

Stationary Source Noise
The proposed Project would include the construction and operation of 60 single-family residential units. Project operation will not include significant sources of stationary noise.

The main source of potential on-site noise would include HVAC equipment.

These types of on-site stationary noises would not typically be categorized as loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise that disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, or that causes discomfort or annoyance to any person of normal sensitiveness. In particular, social activities and vehicle-related noise are generally substantially less during the noise sensitive nighttime hours.

To help ensure that on-site noise levels do not violate the City of Simi Valley noise standards, the following stationary noise impact analysis has been performed.

Per the City of Simi Valley General Plan, proposed projects must ensure that noise levels produced on-site do not exceed 63.0 dBA CNEL at adjacent residential receptors. This

63.0 dBA CNEL threshold applies to specific outdoor spaces, including the private yards of single-family homes, private patios or balconies of multifamily dwellings that are served by a means of exit from inside the dwellings, and outdoor areas within mobile home parks.

The proposed Project would include one HVAC unit for each townhome. These units will be positioned at ground level and clustered together near the respective buildings they serve.

The closest HVAC clusters to adjacent outdoor areas of concern will be positioned between Buildings 1 and 2, located a minimum of 50 feet from the Receptor-1 property line.

Noise levels generated by these HVAC unit clusters have been modeled under two conditions: “Without Enclosure” and “With Enclosure.” Under the “Without Enclosure” condition, it is assumed that the HVAC units will not be shielded from the line of sight of adjacent properties by a noise attenuating enclosure. The “With Enclosure” condition assumes the presence of a five-foot noise barrier enclosure shielding the onsite HVAC units from the line of sight of adjacent properties. Tables 15 and 16 below show the anticipated 418
Environmental Checklist
OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-73
IN

ITIAL STUDY
noise levels at the nearest adjacent sensitive receptors under “Without Wall” and “With Wall” condit
ions, respectively.

TABLE 15
STATIONARY NOISE SOURCE IMPACTS – “WITHOUT WALL” CONDITIONS Source
Receptor
Distance
from
Source Quantity
Equipment Noise
Level at Receptor
Location1
(dBA Leq)
Combined Noise Level
dBA Leq dBA CNEL
HVAC Units - Building 1 50 3 57.4 65.0 71.7 HVAC Units - Building 2 67 5 54.9 City of Simi Valley Stationary Noise Threshold (dBA CNEL) 63.0 Exceeds Threshold? Yes
1 Noise Level is representative of a single HVAC unit.

Source: RK Engineering 2024b (Appendix G).

TABLE 16
S
TATIONARY NOISE SOURCE IMPACTS – “WITH WALL” CONDITIONS Source
Receptor
Distance
from
Source Quantity
Equipment Noise Level
at Receptor Location1
(dBA Leq)
Combined Noise Level
dBA Leq dBA CNEL
HVAC Units - Building 1 50 3 47.9 55.5 62.2 HVAC Units - Building 2 67 5 45.4 City of Simi Valley Stationary Noise Threshold (dBA CNEL) 63.0 Exceeds Threshold? No
1 Noise Level is representative of a single HVAC unit.

Source
: RK Engineering 2024b (Appendix G).

As sh
own in the tables above, noise levels generated by the Project are expected to be 71.7 dBA CNEL and 62.2 dBA CNEL under “Without Wall” and “With Wall” conditions, respectively.

Therefore, to meet the General Plan exterior noise level standard of 63.0 dBA CNEL, the Project would shield all HVAC equipment from the line of sight of adjacent properties behind a property line wall, enclosure, and/or setback a sufficient distance to ensure noise levels do not exceed the City’s General Plan stationary noise level standards. With implementation of this design feature, the Project would not generate onsite stationary noise that would adversely affect the existing ambient conditions in the vicinity of the site, and the Project’s stationary noise source impacts would be less than significant. 419
Environmental Checklist

2-74 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
Traffic Noise
A roadway noise impact analysis has been prepared to determine whether the Project would cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site due to increased traffic volumes along Oak Road.

Access to the Project is proposed via the existing full-access unsignalized intersection of Oak Road at East Los Angeles Avenue. Currently, Oak Road serves as a local street which experiences negligible volumes of average daily traffic. Based on the Oak Road Townhomes Project Traffic Impact Study, City of Simi Valley, California, prepared by RK and dated March 2024, the proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 526 total daily trips.

The City of Simi Valley establishes a noise level threshold of 63.0 dBA for the outdoor habitable areas of residential land uses, including the private yards of single-family homes, private patios or balconies of multifamily dwellings that are served by a means of exit from inside the dwellings, and outdoor areas within mobile home parks. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, a significant roadway noise impact would occur if Project- generated traffic produces noise levels above 63.0 dBA.

Table 17 shows the anticipated noise levels generated by Project-related traffic.

TABLE 17
ROADWAY NOISE IMPACTS1, 2
Roadway Segment
Roadway Noise
Levels at Nearest
Adjacent
Receptors
(dBA CNEL)
Residential
Exterior Noise
Level Threshold
(dBA CNEL)
Exceeds
Threshold?
Oak Road South of E. Los Angeles Ave. 58.0 63.0 No
1 Roadway noise is projected using a version of the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). 2 Project trip generation is referenced from RK Engineering 2024c.

Sourc
e: RK Engineering 2024b (Appendix G).

As shown in the table above, the proposed Project is not expected to result in roadway noise which exceeds the residential exterior noise threshold established in the City’s General Plan.

Therefore, the Project impact from roadway noise is considered less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. To determine the vibratory impacts during construction, reference construction equipment vibration levels were utilized and then extrapolated to the façade of the nearest adjacent structures. The nearest adjacent structures to the Project site are located at Receptor-1, approximately 32 feet east of the Project site’s eastern boundary.

All structures surrounding the Project site are “new structures”. No historical or fragile buildings are known to be located within the vicinity of the site. 420
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-7 5

INITIAL STUDY
The construction of the proposed project is not expected to require the use of substantial vib
ration-inducing equipment or activities, such as pile drivers or blasting. The main sources of vibration impacts during the construction of the Project would be the operation of equipment such as bulldozer activity during site preparation, loading trucks during grading and excavation, and vibratory rollers during paving.

The construction vibration assessment utilizes the referenced vibration levels and methodology set forth within the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, September 2018. Table 18 shows the FTA-referenced vibration levels.

TABLE 18

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS
Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV)
(inches/second) at 25 feet
Approximate Vibration Level (LV)
at 25 feet
Piledriver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112

0.644 (typical) 104
Piledriver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 105

0.170 typical 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill 0.008 in soil 66
(slurry wall) 0.017 in rock 75
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: RK Engineering 2024b (Appendix G).

Table 19 shows the Project’s construction-related vibration analysis at the nearest structures to the Project construction area. Construction impacts are assessed at 32 feet from the nearest expected location of on-site activity.
421
Environmental Checklist
2-76 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
TABLE 19
CONS

TRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Construction
Activity
Distance to
Nearest
Structure (ft) Duration
Calculated
Vibration
Level - PPV
(in/sec)
Damage
Potential
Level
Large Bulldozer 32 Continuous/
Frequent 0.068 None
Vibratory Roller 32 Continuous/
Frequent 0.160 Fragile Buildings
Loaded Trucks 32 Continuous/
Frequent 0.058 None
Source: RK Engineering 2024b (Appendix G).

Based
on the table above, Project-related construction activity is not expected to cause any potential damage to the nearest structures. Hence, the impact from construction-related vibration will be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. Project site is not located within two miles of an airport or a private airstrip. The nearest airport is Van Nuys Airport, which is located 10.5 miles from the Project site. Per the Van Nuys Airport Influence Area map, the proposed project site is located outside of the airport’s area of influence. There would be no impact related to aircraft noise exposure at the Project site, and no mitigation is required.

Project Design Features
PDF NOI-1 All HVAC equipment will be shielded from the line of sight of adjacent properties behind a property line wall, enclosure, and/or setback a sufficient distance to ensure noise levels do not exceed the City’s General Plan stationary noise level standards.

PDF NOI-3 A “windows closed” condition is expected to be required for all residential units facing Oak Road in order to meet the interior noise standard. See Section

6.3.2, Table 16, for details regarding window STC requirements. 422
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-7 7

INITIAL STUDY
PDF NOI-4 For proper acoustical performance, all exterior windows, doors, and sliding glass doors will have a positive seal and leaks/cracks must be kept to a minimum. Attic vents and opening should be oriented away from the adjacent roadways.

PDF NOI-6 All construction equipment will be equipped with mufflers and other suitable noise attenuation devices (e.g., engine shields).

PDF NOI-7 Establish an electric connection to the site before the start of Project construction to avoid the use of diesel and gas powered generators to the extent feasible.

PDF NOI-8 Locate staging area, generators, and stationary construction equipment as far from the adjacent residential homes as feasible.

PDF NOI-9 Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, will be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes.

423
Environmental Checklist

2-78 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY

2.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project involves the demolition of two existing single-family residential structures and associated improvements to accommodate the construction of 60 single-family homes and associated site improvements. Based on current population statistics and data for the City of Simi Valley, published by the U.S. Census Bureau, the City has approximately 2.80 persons per household (U.S. Census Bureau 2024). To estimate the approximate population generated by the Project, the number of proposed units (60) was multiplied by 2.80 persons per household. As a result, it is anticipated that the Project would generate approximately 168 residents. Given that the Project site currently contains two single-family homes within the area subject to development, and using the same methodology described above to calculate the anticipated population generated by the Project, it is estimated that the Project site currently houses approximately 6 persons.

Therefore, the Project would generate a net residential population of approximately 162 persons to the site and surrounding area.

Based on the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG’s) Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, which was prepared in support of the 2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (Connect SoCal 2024), the City of Simi Valley had a total population of 126,800 persons and 42,600 households in 2019, and anticipated growth to 47,400 households by 2050 (SCAG 2024b). As such, the anticipated permanent population projected to be generated by the Project (162 residents) would not contribute to a substantial increase in population.

Additionally, although the Project would include improvements the existing Oak Road, as well as the construction of new private streets to facilitate internal circulation, the Project would not include extension of roads or infrastructure such that would encourage 424
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-7 9

INITIAL STUDY
development levels beyond what is already planned elsewhere in the City or indirectly ind
uce growth. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth, directly or indirectly. The impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is currently developed with two single-family residential homes, ranging in size from 2,163 SF to 2,829 SF, and associated asphalt concrete driveways and parking areas. The existing residences are currently occupied; therefore, construction of the Project would displace all residents located at 1801 and 1807 Oak Road.

However, based on the average persons per household rate of 2.80 for the City of Simi Valley, the existing residences would house approximately 6 persons (U.S. Census Bureau 2024).

Displacement of approximately 6 persons would not constitute a substantial number and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. In addition, based on a vacancy rate for Simi Valley of 2.1 percent (DOF 2025), there would be sufficient replacement residences that are equal to or better than the displacement property available for rent of purchase. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant impacts related to displacement of housing and associated residents, and no replacement housing is required.

A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

425
Environmental Checklist

2-80 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY

2.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:

i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Impact Analysis
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?
Less than Significant Impact. Fire protection and emergency response services in the City of Simi Valley are provided by the VCFD. VCFD provides fire prevention, emergency medical and traffic accident response, hazardous materials response, land and water rescues, and related public safety services throughout the City, operating 34 fire stations within Ventura County (VCFD 2026a). These stations are strategically located throughout the County, with the closest fire station to the Project site being Station 43, located at 5874 E. Los Angeles Avenue, located less than 0.5 miles north of the Project site. Station 43, known as Yosemite Fire Station, is staffed daily by three firefighters and houses a Medic-Engine, a Brush Engine, and a Utility Pickup (VCFD 2026b).

The Project would demolish two existing single-family residences to accommodate the construction of 60 new homes. As described in more detail in Section 2.14, Population and Housing, the Project is expected to generate approximately 168 residents (a net increase of 162 persons), which may result in an increased demand for fire protection services. While the Project would incrementally increase the demand for fire protection services due to the net increase in residential units, this increase is not anticipated to substantially affect VCFD’s 426
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-8 1

INITIAL STUDY
ability to continue to provide adequate service to the County. The proposed uses are not consi
dered high-risk occupancies as defined by the California Building Code (refer to CBC, Chapter 3) and the California Fire Code (CFC) (refer to CFC, Chapter 2). All proposed structures would be required to comply with all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations (including those imposed in the SAMC, CBC and CFC) regarding fire prevention and suppression measures. As required, the Project would pay all applicable VCFD development impact fees and Project plans would be reviewed and approved by the City and VCFD to ensure compliance with emergency access, fire hydrant placement and sprinkler systems, and construction standards that support fire protection and emergency response.

This would additionally minimize Project demand for fire protection services. No new fire stations or substantial alterations to existing facilities would be required to serve the Project; therefore, no physical impacts associated with the provision of fire protection services would occur. Impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
ii) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. Police protection services for the Project site are provided by the Simi Valley Police Department. The Simi Valley Police Department includes 1) the Operations Division that focuses on patrols, traffic, community policing and communications; and 2) the Investigative Division that includes the Detective Bureau, Professional Standards Bureau, Special Enforcement Bureau, and Records Bureau. The Simi Valley Police Department operates out of their main headquarters located at 2929 Tapo Canyon Road and provides patrol, investigations, traffic enforcement, and community policing services throughout the City. (City of Simi Valley 2026) The Project would replace two existing single-family residences with 60 new homes, generating approximately 168 residents (a net addition of 162 residents). While the Project would incrementally increase the demand for police protection services due to the net increase in residential units, the resulting increase in residential population and site activity would be minor in the context of existing development in the City and is not anticipated to substantially affect the Simi Valley Police Department’s ability to continue to provide adequate service to the City.

While the Project would incrementally increase demand for police protection services, it would not, by itself, generate the need for new or physically altered police facilities and it is anticipated that the Simi Valley Police Department has the capacity to continue serving the Project site and surrounding area using existing facilities and resources. Furthermore, the Project would be constructed in accordance with applicable City design standards, including features that support crime prevention such as lighting, visibility, and controlled access. The Project would also be subject to review by the Simi Valley Police Department as part of the City’s development review process to ensure public safety considerations are addressed. As such, the Project would not require the construction of new or altered police protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of service to the Project area, and no physical impacts would result. A less than significant impact related to police protection services would occur, and no mitigation is required.
427
Environmental Checklist

2-82 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
iii) Schools?
Less
than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the service area of the Simi Valley Unified School District (SVUSD), which provides public education services for grades TK – 12. Future students residing at the Project site would be served by Knolls Elementary School (6334 Katherine Road), Valley View Middle School (3347 Tapo Street), and Simi Valley High School (5400 Cochran Street) (SVUSD 2026).

As the Project involves the construction of 60 single-family residences anticipated to generate approximately 168 residents (a net addition of 58 single-family residences and approximately 162 residents), the Project may incrementally increase the number of students enrolled in local SVUSD schools; however, this increase would be minimal in the context of overall district enrollment and would not, in itself, necessitate new or physically expanded school facilities. Additionally, pursuant to AB 2926 and SB 50, school districts in California are legally authorized to collect statutory school impact fees on new residential development and, in some cases, commercial and industrial development. These fees are intended to offset the cost of school facility construction or expansion resulting from new development. The Project would be required to pay these impact fees to SVUSD prior to issuance of building permits, in accordance with state law.

Per Section 65996 of the California Government Code, payment of these statutory fees are generally considered full mitigation for new development projects. Therefore, even with the minor increase in potential student generation, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. A less than significant impact related to schools would occur, and no mitigation is required.
iv) Parks?
Less than Significant Impact. The Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District (Park District) is an independent special district that owns, operates, and maintains parks and open space areas in the City of Simi Valley and surrounding unincorporated areas in Ventura County.

Within the City, the Park District maintains and operates 42 parks totaling 1,212.3 acres, including 124.4 acres of community parks, 205.0 acres of neighborhood parks, 577.0 acres of natural parks, 304.4 acres of special use parks, and 1.7 acres of mini parks. (City of Simi Valley 2012b)
The nearest parks to the Project site include Arroyostow Park, located approximately 0.30- mile west; Verde Park, located approximately 0.42-mile northeast; and Knolls Park, located approximately 0.53-mile southeast. As discussed in Section 2.14, Population and Housing, the Project would result in a net increase in City population by approximately 162 residents, which would incrementally increase demand for local parks and recreational facilities.

The Project would provide a total of 34,235 sf private open space areas, consisting of private patio and lawn space. Additionally, the Project would include a total of 17,807 sf of common open space areas comprised of two community green space areas with amenities. The Project’s proposed private and common open space areas would help offset the incremental 428
Environmental Checklist
OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-83
IN

ITIAL STUDY
increase in demand for parks and recreational facilities generated by the Project, and any impacts
of these facilities have already been analyzed and identified throughout this IS as part of the Project.

The Park District has established a standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents for the City of Simi Valley. This standard is met and exceeded by existing parks and open space areas within the City. Additionally, pursuant to Chapter 9-68 of the SVMC, the Project would be required to pay in lieu fees to the Park District to fund the future dedication, development, and/or expansion of park and recreation facilities in the City to ensure adequate parks and recreation facilities are available. Payment of these fees would ensure that any potential impact on existing parks and recreation facilities are offset. Therefore, through the provision of Project-serving private and common open space areas on the site, as well as through compliance with the SVMC, the Project would not result in the deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks and would not result in the need for new recreational facilities, the development of which could cause an adverse physical impact on the environment. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
v) Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. Library services in the City of Simi Valley are provided by the Simi Valley Public Library, which is located at 2969 Tapo Canyon Road and open 7 days a week. The Simi Valley Public Library also operates a Mobile Library with scheduled stops at schools and community centers and plans to participate in the Simi Valley Street Fairs. (SVPL 2026)
As the Project would generate approximately 168 new residents (a net addition of approximately 162 residents), the Project may result in a minor increase in demand for library services in the City. However, as previously discussed, this level of growth is minimal in the context of the City’s broader development patterns and would not represent a substantial or unanticipated increase in population. The City’s General Plan, including its Community Services Element, anticipates population growth and includes strategies to maintain adequate public facilities over time (City of Simi Valley 2012c). The demand generated by the Project would be within the scope of anticipated Citywide population growth and would not trigger the need for new or expanded library facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact related to libraries would occur, and no mitigation is required.

429
Environmental Checklist
2-84 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY

2.16 RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment
Less than Significant Impact. The Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District (Park District) is an independent special district that owns, operates, and maintains parks and open space areas in the City of Simi Valley and surrounding unincorporated areas in Ventura County.

0.30-mile west; Verde Park, located approximately 0.42-mile northeast; and Knolls Park, located approximately 0.53-mile southeast. As discussed in Section 2.14, Population and Housing, the Project would result in a net increase in City population by approximately 162 residents, which would incrementally increase demand for local parks and recreational facilities.

The Project would provide a total of 34,235 sf private open space areas, consisting of private patio and lawn space. Additionally, the Project would include a total of 17,807 sf of common open space areas comprised of two community green space areas with amenities. The Project’s proposed private and common open space areas would help offset the incremental increase in demand for parks and recreational facilities generated by the Project, and any 430
Environmental Checklist
OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-85
IN

ITIAL STUDY
impacts of these facilities have already been analyzed and identified throughout this IS as part of
the Project.

As discussed in Section 2.15, Public Services, the Park District has established a standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents for the City of Simi Valley. This standard is met and exceeded by existing parks and open space areas within the City. Additionally, pursuant to Chapter 9-68 of the SVMC, the Project would be required to pay in lieu fees to the Park District to fund the future dedication, development, and/or expansion of park and recreation facilities in the City to ensure adequate parks and recreation facilities are available. Payment of these fees would ensure that any potential impact on existing parks and recreation facilities are offset. Therefore, through the provision of Project-serving private and common open space areas on the site, as well as through compliance with the SVMC, the Project would not result in the deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks and would not result in the need for new recreational facilities, the development of which could cause an adverse physical impact on the environment. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
431
Environmental Checklist

2-86 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY

2.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact.

The Project is primarily guided by the City of Simi Valley General Plan Mobility and Infrastructure Element (City of Simi Valley 2012d), which discusses existing transit, roadways, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities within the City.

The City of Simi Valley is served by various transportation facilities in addition to the SR-118 regional freeway network and local roadway network, including a freight and commuter rail line, and several bus transit lines. Transit services near the Project site are provided by Simi Valley Transit, with bus service along Los Angeles Avenue and Yosemite Avenue via Routes 10 and 20, located less than 0.2 mile from the Project site. The Project would not impact or modify these existing facilities.

The Project would construct new on-site private streets (Private Streets A, B, C, D, and E), as well as improve the existing private Oak Road within the site boundaries to include an entrance and paving to provide vehicular access within the site. A 4-foot-wide concrete pedestrian walkway would be installed along the private streets to provide on-site pedestrian connectivity throughout the neighborhood and amenities. Project parking, including bicycle parking, would also be provided consistent with City standards. All circulation improvements would be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure compliance with applicable design standards.

As the Project would maintain existing roadway, bicycle, and transit facilities and would provide on-site circulation improvements consistent with the City of Simi Valley General 432
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-8 7

INITIAL STUDY
Plan Mobility and Infrastructure Element, it would not conflict with any adopted program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact. Consistent with the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, the City of Simi Valley has adopted significance criteria for transportation impacts based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for land use development projects. The City has also adopted criteria for screening projects out of detailed VMT analysis.

According to the City, and under the Project Type Screening, the Project is located within a low-VMT generating area for residential uses and meets the City’s established screening criteria (Link 2025). As a result, the Project is presumed to have a less-than significant VMT impact and is exempt from further VMT analysis. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project involves demolition of two existing residential structures to accommodate 60 new single-family homes. Access to the Project area would continue to be provided by SR 118 and East Los Angeles Avenue, through Oak Road, which is a private roadway that extends north-south along the eastern boundary of the site. The Project would construct new on-site private streets (Private Streets A, B, C, D, and E), as well as improve the existing private Oak Road within the site boundaries to include an entrance and paving to provide vehicular access within the site. A 4-foot-wide concrete pedestrian walkway would be installed along the private streets to provide on-site pedestrian connectivity throughout the neighborhood and amenities.

The Project does not introduce sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or other geometric features that would increase hazards. In addition, the proposed residential uses are compatible with surrounding land uses (residential uses, fire station, and commercial uses).

Accordingly, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities for the Project, including staging and worker parking would occur on site. All construction staging areas would be prohibited to occur on the street or within the public right-of-way. The Project would likely temporarily alter traffic patterns along Oak Road during construction. However, the Project would not completely close Oak Road at any point. The Project would comply with all conditions set forth in the required Project-specific TCP, which would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to initiation of construction activities. Additionally, a dedicated fire access lane easement would be provided along all private streets in compliance with Ventura County 433
Environmental Checklist

2-88 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
Fire Department standards and requirements to ensure emergency access to and from the sit
e is maintained at all times during Project operation. Therefore, neither Project construction or operation would result in a significant interference of emergency access during construction.

434
Environmental Checklist
OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-89
IN

ITIAL STUDY

2.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Introduction
The following analysis of tribal cultural resources is based on the Phase I Cultural Resource Report, Oak Road South Project, Simi Valley California (Phase I Report), dated January 2026 and prepared for the Project by Envicom (Envicom 2026; Appendix C to this IS) and information provided by the City regarding Senate Bill (SB) 18 consultation efforts.

Additionally, an inquiry was made to the NAHC for a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search regarding the possibility of Native American cultural resources and/or sacred places in the Project vicinity that are not documented on other databases. The NAHC SLF results were negative.

SB-18 is a state-mandated program intended to establish between local city and county governments and Native American Tribal Groups, meaningful and ongoing government-to- government consultation as part of the planning process. The purpose of SB-18 is to protect and preserve the cultural places of California Native Americans, both on private and on public lands. Local city and county governments are required to consult with California Tribal Groups about proposed local land use planning decisions, and on the adoption or substantial amendment of general plans, specific plans, or the dedication of open spaces with the purpose of protecting cultural places. Negotiation can result in the development or modification of treatment and management plans for cultural resources.

For the purposes of California Government Code Section 65351, 64352.3, and 65562.5, “consultation” means the meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement. SB-18 processes take place outside of the CEQA process.
435
Environmental Checklist

2-90 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
The City of Simi Valley sent notification of the Project to the California Native American tribes inclu
ded on the list provided by the NAHC on December 5, 2025, inviting them to engage in government-to-government consultation pursuant to SB 18. The following tribes were notified of the Project as part of the SB 18 process:
• Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI)
• Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians
• Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation
• Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation
• Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation
• Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council • Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council • Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
• Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
• Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
• Northern Chumash Tribal Council
• Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians
• Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians
Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians The City concluded consultation on March 18, 2025.

Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, the SCCIC record search and literature review did not identify any previously recorded precontact or tribal cultural resources within the Project site. Furthermore, the SLF search was negative and did not identify the Project site as sensitive for known sacred lands/sites.

As such, there are no known tribal cultural resources within the Project site. Therefore, 436
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-9 1

INITIAL STUDY
the Project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to tribal cultural resources tha
t are listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). No mitigation is required.

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant Impact. Because Native American tribes frequently have knowledge concerning important undocumented cultural resources, the lead agency (City of Simi Valley) submitted Project notification letters on December 17, 2025 to initiate tribal consultation, consistent with the requirements of SB 18. Consultation was closed on March 18, 2026. As described above, the City sent notification letters to each tribal representative on the NAHC Native American contact list for the City, notifying them of the Project and inviting them to participate in meaningful consultation.

The City received a responses from one tribe: FTBMI (December 23, 2025). FTBMI provided an email response which was noted to serve as consultation on the Project.

Consultation between the City and FTBMI was closed on March 18, 2026, with an understanding that the recommended measures would be implemented as part of the City’s Cultural Resource Construction Protocol, defined as PDF TCR-1, below.

Based on consultation and the available record search information, no known tribal cultural resources have been identified within the Project site, and a significant impact to tribal cultural resources has not been identified, assuming compliance with PDFs identified below. Accordingly, no mitigation measures specific to tribal cultural resources are required, and impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Project Design Features
PDF TCR-1 The Project applicant shall retain a professional Tribal Monitor procured by the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to spot-check all ground-disturbing activities occurring within the first five feet of native soil.

Spot-checking shall occur once weekly for the duration of these activities.

2-92 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
scheduling, the project applicant shall submit written confirmation to the Tri
be following completion of each set of monitored activities, and shall provide 5 days’ written notice prior to the start of the next set of activities.

If cultural resources are encountered, the Tribal Monitor is authorized to request that ground-disturbing activities cease within 60 feet of the discovery.

A qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s standards, retained by the project applicant, shall assess the find alongside the Tribal Monitor.

438
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-9 3

INITIAL STUDY

2.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

Impact Analysis
Would the Project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact.

Potable Water
The Project site is within the water service area of the Golden State Water Company, which would
provide potable (drinking) water services for the Project. To accommodate the proposed development, the Project would install new 6-inch domestic water service lines with metered connections to the proposed residences within the on-site private streets, which would connect to the existing Golden State Water Company water system.

The majority of the proposed water infrastructure would be installed within previously disturbed or developed areas, including the existing building footprints and roadways, or within the proposed development footprint which is assumed to be fully disturbed as part of the Project. Any minor relocation of existing utility lines necessary to accommodate the new 439
Environmental Checklist

2-94 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
infrastructure would also be localized and consistent with typical urban infill development.

Pote
ntial impacts associated with construction of the Project, including all associated utility infrastructure, such as temporary noise, dust, or vegetation impacts, have been addressed throughout the environmental analyses contained in this IS, and no separate or significant impacts would result specifically from the installation of proposed water infrastructure.

Payment of standard water connection fees would ensure that the Project’s demand on existing water facilities is appropriately offset. All private water lines would be designed and constructed in accordance with the latest editions of the City’s Water Design and Construction Standards, American Water Works Association Standards, and California Waterworks Standards.

As a result, the Project would not require or result in the need for new or expanded public water treatment or distribution facilities, and no significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of the proposed on-site water infrastructure. Impacts related to the construction or relocation of water facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater generated on the Project site is collected by the City’s local wastewater collecti
on system and conveyed to the City’s Water Quality Control Plant for treatment, all of which is maintained by the Sanitation Services Division of the City’s Department of Public Works.

To serve the future residences, the Project would install new sanitary sewer lines and associated laterals, manholes, and cleanouts within the on-site private street system, which would connect to the City’s existing sanitary sewer system.

The majority of this infrastructure would be installed within previously disturbed or developed areas, including the existing building footprints and roadways, or within the proposed development footprint which is assumed to be fully disturbed as part of the Project. The Project may require the minor relocation of existing utility infrastructure to accommodate the installation of proposed utilities, which would be conducted in compliance with City requirements and would not represent a significant impact. Additionally, the installation of Project utility lines may extend within previously undisturbed areas; however, such work would be limited in scale, localized, and comparable to standard utility installation associated with infill development.

Any temporary construction impacts, such as those associated with air quality, dust, noise, and traffic, have been evaluated throughout the environmental analyses contained in this IS, and no separate or significant impacts would occur specifically as a result of the proposed wastewater infrastructure. The Project would not require construction or expansion of regional wastewater treatment facilities, nor would it necessitate relocation of any existing treatment infrastructure.
440
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-9 5

INITIAL STUDY
The Project would be required to pay all applicable City sanitation service fees. All private sew
er improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with the latest editions of the Manual and Standard Plans for the Design and Construction of Sanitary Sewerage Facilities, the Ventura County Sewerage Manual, and Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.

For the reasons listed above, the Project would not result in significant impacts associated with the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, nor would it require the relocation of existing wastewater treatment facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Storm Drainage
The Project would install a new storm drain pipe and a series of curb and gutters, on-site catch
basins, an underground infiltration basin, diversion structure, and modular wetlands system biofiltration vault, to capture, retain, and treat stormwater on-site before discharging to the existing Arroyo Simi Flood Control Channel.

The Project’s potential environmental effects for construction of the stormwater drainage improvements are analyzed in this IS. Construction of the new storm drain improvements would be subject to compliance with all applicable local, State, and federal laws, ordinances, and regulations. Project construction would not encroach into the public right-of-way without undergoing proper review through the City, which would require an encroachment permit. Compliance with relevant laws, ordinances, and regulations would ensure the Project’s impacts associated with the proposed storm drain improvements would be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, impacts related to stormwater facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Dry Utilities
Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunication services are provided to the Project site by the
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), Southern California Edison (SCE), Spectrum, and AT&T, respectively. The Projects estimated energy use during construction and operations is discussed in Section 2.6, Energy.

The Project would relocate some existing power poles and overhead electrical/utility lines along Oak Road underground and would install new power poles in accordance with City standards. The extension and installation of utility service connections would occur within previously disturbed areas of the Project site. All work associated with utility extensions and connections would be conducted in accordance with applicable industry standards and City requirements. Construction would not encroach into the public right-of-way without review and issuance of an encroachment permit through the City’s Public Works Department.

Payment of standard utility connection fees and ongoing user fees would ensure that existing utility services can accommodate the proposed development.

As a result, the Project would not result in significant impacts related to natural gas, electricity, or telecommunications infrastructure. Impacts associated with installation, 441
Environmental Checklist

2-96 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY
relocation, and/or extension of utilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation meas
ures are required.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple years? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would require water for uses typical of residential developments, including indoor use and outdoor landscaping and maintenance uses. As the Project would replace 2 existing single-family homes with 60 homes, the Project would result in a net increase in water demand.

As previously mentioned, the Project site is within the Golden State Water Company service area. Water delivered to customers in the Simi Valley system is comprised of treated surface water purchased from the Calleguas Municipal Water District, which obtains its supply from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The primary water supply is supplemented with Simi Valley Groundwater Basin groundwater (GSWC 2026). According to a letter obtained for the Project, the Golden State Water Company would be able to provide both domestic and fire protection water service to the Project, with all costs associated with necessary improvements to be paid by the Project applicant (GSWC 2025). Therefore, impacts related to water supply availability would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Simi Valley Sanitation Division is responsible for the treatment of wastewater within the City. The Sanitation Division operates, maintains and monitors the sewer system to ensure sewage is conveyed to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), which treats approximately 10 million gallons of wastewater each day. The WWTP is located at the western end of the City and is an activated sludge plant.

Based on email correspondence received from the City’s Sanitation Division, the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant has sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project, and the Project would not result in significant impacts associated with treatment capacity (Hamilton 2026; Yazdani, 2026). Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. Waste Management provides solid waste disposal and recycling services within the City, including the Project site. Waste Management operates one landfill within the City, the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center located at 2801 N.

Madera Road, which accepts a wide variety of waste types (tires, biosolids, mixed municipal, 442
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-9 7

INITIAL STUDY
inert, industrial, green materials, food wastes, dead animals, contaminated soil, construction and
demolition, asbestos, and agricultural). The Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center has a maximum permitted weekly throughput of 64,750 tons per week and an estimated remaining total facility capacity of 79,783,835 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of March 2063 (CalRecycle 2026). Solid waste generated by the Project during construction and operations would be transferred to this landfill.

Construction of the Project would generate construction and demolition (C&D) solid waste/debris, including materials such as scrap wood, concrete, metal, plaster, and green waste, among others. However, Project construction is not anticipated to generate significant quantities of solid waste with the potential to affect the capacity of regional landfills. All activities would be subject to conformance with relevant federal, state, and local requirements related to solid waste disposal. Specifically, the Project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which requires all California cities to “reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible.” AB 939 requires that at least 50 percent of waste produced is recycled, reduced, or composted. The Project would also be required to demonstrate compliance with the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), which requires that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from new residential construction operations be diverted from landfills, and includes design and construction measures that act to reduce construction-related waste through material conservation and other construction-related efficiency measures.

In support of statewide waste reduction and recycling goals, the City established their Construction and Demolition Waste Management and Recycling Program, which requires all C&D projects to recycle 100 percent of asphalt and concrete materials and at least 65 percent of all other C&D debris and materials. Per the CALGreen Code and the City’s recycling program, the Project would be required to complete and submit a Waste Management Plan to the City’s Building & Safety Division prior to the issuance of any building permit, demonstrating that 100 percent of asphalt and concrete materials and at least 65 percent or more of all other C&D debris generated during Project construction have been recycled.

Compliance with these regulations would ensure the Project’s construction-related solid waste impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

During operations, the Project is expected to result in a solid waste generation rate of 48.31 tons per year. The Project’s nominal solid waste generation represents less than one percent of the total residual capacity of 64,750 tons per week from the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center. As such, the Project is not anticipated to generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

As stated above, the Project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the California Integrated Waste Management Act, the CALGreen Code, and City recycling programs. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
443
Environmental Checklist

2-98 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY

2.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

Impact Analysis
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The proposed Project is not located within or near a State Responsibility Area or a VHFHSZ, within a Local Responsibility Area, as defined by CAL FIRE (CAL FIRE 2026).

During construction activities, all construction staging areas would occur on-site. The Project may temporarily close lanes and alter traffic patterns in the immediate area during construction. However, the Project would not completely close any roadways. The Project would comply with all conditions set forth in the required Project-specific Traffic Control Plan (TCP), which would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to initiation of construction activities. Therefore, with implementation of the required TCP, the possible temporary closure of lanes would not result in a significant interference of emergency access during construction.

During operations, the Project would provide dedicated fire access lanes designed in compliance with Ventura County’s Public Road Standards and the Ventura County Fire Code, including a minimum access width of 24 feet and a 2.5-foot easement on each side of the access lane to allow for curbs and fire lane signage. Furthermore, because Checklist Response Thresholds 2.20(a) through 2.20(d) apply only to those projects that are “located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones”, no impacts related to these thresholds would occur, and no mitigation is required. 444
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-9 9

INITIAL STUDY
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and th
ereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. The Project site is not located in designated VHFHSZ, as identified by CAL FIRE.

Because Checklist Response Thresholds 2.20(a) through 2.20(d) apply only to those projects that are “located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones”, no impacts related to these thresholds would occur, and no mitigation is required.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact. As previously described, the proposed Project is not within a designated VHFHSZ as defined by CAL FIRE. All proposed structures would be constructed to meet current building and fire codes. Implementation of the proposed Project and maintenance of associated infrastructure would not exacerbate fire risk such that would result in a significant temporary or ongoing impact. Additionally, because Checklist Response Thresholds 2.20(a) through 2.20(d) apply only to those projects that are “located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones”, no impacts related to these thresholds would occur, and no mitigation is required. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. As previously described, the proposed Project is not within a designated VHFHSZ as defined by CAL FIRE. Because Checklist Response Thresholds 2.20(a) through 2.20(d) apply only to those projects that are “located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones”, no impacts related to these thresholds would occur, and no mitigation is required.
445
Environmental Checklist

2-100 OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY

2.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (‘Cumulatively
considerable’ means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Impact Analysis:

Would the Project:
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant. There are no sensitive biological resources, habitats, or species on the Project site that would be affected by the Project. As indicated in Section 2.4, Biological Resources, of this IS, the removal and replacement of these 5 mature Oak trees would be conducted in accordance with the City’s Mature Tree Preservation Ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in Section 2.5, Cultural Resources, the City’s standard Cultural Resources Construction Protocol would be followed during Project construction as detailed in PDF CUL-1 to ensure a significant impact would not occur in the event of an unanticipated discovery, including periodic spot checks by a qualified archaeologist during ground disturbance. Therefore, with the incorporation of the identified PDF, the Project does not have the potential to restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Impacts would be less than significant.
446
Environmental Checklist

OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 2-1 01

INITIAL STUDY
Further, as discussed in Section 2.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, potential impacts to tribal cultu
ral resources would be less than significant with incorporation of the voluntary and agreed upon Construction Protocol by the City and the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. As part of the Construction Protocol (PDF TCR 1 through PDF TCR-3), the City would require the presence of a Native American monitor to observe ground disturbing activity; and provide the discovery protocol upon unanticipated discovery of a TCR for non- funerary/ceremonial and for funerary or ceremonial object. Therefore, with implementation of PDF TCR 1, PDF TCR-2 and PDF TCR-3, the Project does not have the potential to restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (‘Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would implement all recommendations and Project design features set forth for the Project which would ensure that impacts would be less than significant level. All reasonably foreseeable future development in the City would be subject to the same land use and environmental regulations that have been described throughout this document. Furthermore, all development projects are guided by the policies identified in the City’s General Plan and by the regulations established in the Municipal Code. Therefore, compliance with applicable land use and environmental regulations would ensure that environmental effects associated with the proposed Project would not combine with effects from reasonably foreseeable future development in the City to cause cumulatively considerable significant impacts. Cumulative impacts would therefore be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. As detailed throughout this IS/MND, the proposed Project would not exceed any significance thresholds or result in significant impacts in the environmental categories typically associated with indirect or direct effects to human beings, such as aesthetics, air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services, or transportation. All such impacts would be considered less than significant. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

447
448

3.0 REFERENCES
Campbell, Richard. 2025a (September 19). Mature Non-Native Tree Report, Oak Road South Property. Thousand Oaks, California: Richard Campbell. Appendix B-2. ———. 2025b (September 19). Native Oak Tree Report, Oak Road South Property. Thousand Oaks, CA: Richard Campbell. Appendix B-3.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2026 (January 15, access date). iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. Sacramento, CA: CARB.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR). 2026 (February 2, access date). Mines Online. Sacramento, CA: DMR. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection (DLRP). 2026a (January 28, access date). California Important Farmland Finder. Sacramento, CA: DLRP. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.
———. 2026b (January 28, access date). Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Sacramento, CA:

DLRP. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/.

California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey (CGS). 2026 (February 18, access date). EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Sacramento, CA: CGS. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/.

California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). 2025. (February 18, access date). Well Finder. Sacramento, CA: CalGEM. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/findwells/.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2026. FHSZ Viewer.

Sacramento, CA: CAL FIRE.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/5065c998b4b0462f9ec3c6c226c610a9.

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2025 (May). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2025. Sacramento, CA: DOF. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and- housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2025/.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2026 (February 16, access date). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center (56-AA-0007). Sacramento, CA: CalRecycle.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/608?siteID=3954. 449

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2026 (February 2, access date).

Env
irostor - Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). Sacramento, CA:

DTSC. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2026 (February 16 access date).

California State Scenic Highway System Map. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d80 7c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004 (February 27, updated). Simi Valley Groundwater Basin. Sacramento, CA: DWR. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR- Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin- 118/Files/2003-Basin-Descriptions/4_009_SimiValley.pdf.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2026 (February 2, access date).

Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a). Sacramento, CA: CalEPA. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/.

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2026 (February 2, access date).

GeoTracker. Sacramento, CA: SWRCB
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?myaddress=California&from=header &cqid=1214749991.

C&V Consulting, Inc. (C&V). 2025 (November). Preliminary Drainage Report for TTM 6129, 1761 Oak Road, City of Simi Valley, Ventura County, California. Irvine, CA: C&V.

Appendix F.

Envicom Corporation (Envicom). 2026 (January). Phase I Cultural Resource Report for the Oak Road South Project, Simi Valley, California. Westlake Village, CA: Envicom.

Appendix C.
———. 2025 (September 10). Biological Site Assessment for Oak Road South Project.

Westlake Village, CA: Envicom. Appendix B-1.

GEOCON West, Inc. (GEOCON). 2026 (January 26). Response to Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review Letter Proposed Multi-family Residential Development Oak Road Townhomes 1761-1807 Oak Road, Simi Valley, California.

Burbank, CA: GEOCON. Appendix D.
———. 2025a (June 9). Response to Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review Letter Proposed Multi-family Residential Development Oak Road Townhomes 1761-1807 Oak Road, Simi Valley, California. Burbank, CA: GEOCON.

Appendix D.
———. 2025b (August 28). Response to Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review Letter Proposed Multi-family Residential Development Oak Road Townhomes 1761-1807 Oak Road, Simi Valley, California. Burbank, CA: GEOCON.

Appendix D.
450

———. 2024 (January 31). Update of Geotechnical Investigation Liquefaction Analysis & Per
colation Test Results Proposed Multi-family Residential Development Oak Road Townhomes 1761-1807 Oak Road Simi Valley, California. Burbank, CA: GEOCON.

Appendix D.
———. 2022 (November 8). Updated Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multi-family Residential Development Oak Road Townhomes 1761-1807 Oak Road Simi Valley, California. Burbank, CA: GEOCON. Appendix D.

Golden State Water Company (GSWC). 2026 (February 18, access date). Simi Valley. San Dimas, CA: GSWC. https://www.gswater.com/simi-valley.
———. 2025 (August 26). Preliminary Can and Will Serve Letter for 1761 Oak Rd, Simi Valley [6370-1240-15/ 6370-140-32]. San Dimas, CA: GSWC.

Hamilton, J. 2026 (March 9). “City of Simi Valley Proposed Residential Project”. Email correspondence between John Hamilton (City of Simi Valley) and Jennifer Marks (Psomas) regarding wastewater treatment capacity.

Hillmann Consulting LLC. (Hillmann Consulting). 2022 (January 17). Phase I Environmental Assessment, 1761, 1801, and 1807 Oak Road, Simi Valley, California 93063. Irvine, CA: Hillmann Consulting. Appendix E.

Link, J. 2025 (December 5). “Re: New Project – Oak Road South.” Email correspondence between Justin Link (City of Simi Valley) and Naren Gunasekera (City of Simi Valley) regarding Project VMT.

RK Engineering, Inc. (RK Engineering). 2026 (January 20). Oak Road Residential Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Energy, And Noise Impact Study Supplemental Memorandum, City of Simi Valley. Newport Beach, CA: RK Engineering. Appendix A-2. ———. 2025 (August 7). Oak Road Townhomes Project Trip Generation Assessment, City of Simi Valley. Newport Beach, CA: RK Engineering.
———. 2024a (March 29). Oak Road Townhomes Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, And Energy Impact Study, City of Simi Valley, California. Newport Beach, CA: RK Engineering. Appendix A-1.
———. 2024b (March 29). Oak Road Townhomes Project Noise Impact Study, Simi Valley, California. Newport Beach, CA: RK Engineering. Appendix G. ———. 2024c (March 8). Oak Road Townhomes Project Traffic Impact Study, City of Simi Valley California. Newport Beach, CA: RK Engineering.

Simi Valley, City of. 2026 (February 18, access date). Police Department – Divisions. Simi Valley, CA: City of. https://www.simivalley.org/departments/police- department/divisions.
451

———. 2021. General Plan Safety and Noise Element. Simi Valley, CA: City of. htt
ps://www.simivalley.org/home/showpublisheddocument/6869/63779326855 0000000.
———. 2012a. General Plan Natural Resources Element. Simi Valley, CA: City of. https://www.simivalley.org/home/showpublisheddocument/6867/63630634628 6630000.
———. 2012b (June). Simi Valley General Plan Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2009121004. Volume I: Final EIR. Simi Valley, CA: City of. https://www.simivalley.org/departments/environmental-services/planning- division/documents-applications-and-development-activity/general-plan. ———. 2012c. General Plan Community Services Element. Simi Valley, CA: City of. https://www.simivalley.org/home/showpublisheddocument/6868/63630634628 6630000.
———. 2012d. General Plan Mobility and Infrastructure Element. Simi Valley, CA: City of. https://www.simivalley.org/home/showpublisheddocument/6866/63630634628 6630000.
———. 2001 (March). SEMS Multi-Hazard Functional Plan (Emergency Plan). Simi Valley, CA:

City of.
https://www.simivalley.org/home/showpublisheddocument/8043/63694891629 6900000.

Simi Valley Public Library (SVPL). 2026 (February 18, access date). About Us. Simi Valley, CA: SVPL. https://simivalleylibrary.org/.

Simi Valley Unified School District (SVUSD). 2026 (February 18, access date). School Boundary Maps. Simi Valley, CA: SVUSD. https://www.simivalleyusd.org/about-simi- schools/school-boundary-maps.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024a (April 4, adopted). Connect SoCal: 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG. https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal.
———. 2024b. (April 4, adopted). Connect SoCal 2024: Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG.
https://www.scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-2987-tr-demographics- growth-forecast-final-040424.pdf.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2022. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air- quality/air-quality-management-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan. 452
U.S. Census Bureau. 2024 (July 1). QuickFacts Population and Demographics Statistics – Simi Valley city, California. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/simivalleycitycalifornia,US/PST045 225.

Ventura County Fire Department Fire Prevention Bureau (VCFDFPB) 2026 (January 8).

Memorandum: PD-S-2024-0005 (GPA-2024-0001, Z-S-2024-0003, Z-S-2025-0005, and TT-2024-0004). Thousand Oaks, CA: VCFDFPB.

Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD). 2026a (February 18, access date). About the VCFD.

Thousand Oaks, CA: VCPD. https://fire.venturacounty.gov/about-vcfd/. ———. 2026b (February 18, access date). Station 43. Thousand Oaks, CA: VCFD. https://fire.venturacounty.gov/station-43/.

Yazdani, J. 2026 (April 29). “Deemed Complete/Call for Conditions: PD-S-2024-0005 (GPA- 2024-0001, Z-S-2024-0003, and TT-2024-0004)- Oak Road South”. Email correspondence from Jamshed Yazdani (City of Simi Valley) regarding sewer area study
453

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
454
455

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
456
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, 27
th Floor | San Diego, CA 92101-0903
Telephone: 619.233.1155 | Facsimile: 619.233.1158
www.allenmatkins.com
Timothy M. Hutter
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 619.235.1510 File Number: 397356.00001/4910-4409-9728.3 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
February 27, 2026
Joaquin Vazquez
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
1770 Iowa Avenue - Suite 240
Riverside, CA 92507
[email protected]
Re: Density Bonus Application
Oak Road South at 1761, 1801, & 1807 Oak Road (“Property”) Dear Mr. Vasquez:

As you know, this law firm represents the applicant, Oak Road Owners South, LLC (the “Applicant”), with regard to the above-referenced project (the “Project”). This letter follows our prior correspondence to the City of Simi Valley (the “City”) on January 29, 2026, and your email response on February 9, 2026. There remain areas of disagreement relating to statutory interpretation between the Applicant team and the City, and all rights are reserved, but we believe there is a path forward. As noted previously, the Applicant requested that we provide a summary of California Density Bonus Law (the “DBL”) and the Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”). To that end, this letter updates the application of the DBL and HAA to the Project in order to provide the City with assistance and guidance in its review of the Project application. Per our discussion, we understand you will review and share this letter with City staff, including Mr. Perros.

I. PROJECT DETAILS
A. Project Background
The Property is 5.721 gross acres, with zoning of up to 20 dwelling units per acre.1 As a result, the maximum base density for the Property is 114.4 units, rounded up to 115. The Applicant has proposed a 60-unit, two-story for-sale community with three (3) one-bedroom units, twenty (20) three-bedroom units, and thirty-seven (37) four-bedroom units. Three of the three-bedroom units will be deed-restricted for sale to very low income households. 1 SVMC § 9-24.020(G).
457
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Joaquin Vazquez
February 27, 2026

Page 2 ends

Simi Valley City CouncilJune 8, 2026

Simi Valley City Council
June 8, 2026