By dedicating five percent of the total unit count (and 5.3% of the market rate unit count), the Applicant is proposing a DBL Qualifying Project, and is therefore eligible for one incentive, unlimited waivers, and reduced parking requirements pursuant to the DBL.
B. Incentive Request
In the course of its due diligence review and underwriting process, the Applicant discovered that deviating from the all-multifamily design standard jointly imposed by SVMC §§ 9-24-030 and 9-80.020 would result in significant cost reductions that would allow the Applicant to develop the Project at a lower overall cost. Specifically, we enclose letters from builders Planet Home Living, as Exhibit A, and Ironside Builders, as Exhibit B. These exhibits clearly show that building the Project with detached units will lower the overall cost of building the Project as opposed to an attached townhome concept, and therefore provide greater flexibility to include affordable housing units at reduced rents.
Accordingly, the Applicant is requesting to utilize an incentive to allow it to deviate from the design standard jointly imposed by SVMC §§ 9-24-030 and 9-80.020. As noted, there are actual and identifiable cost reductions that will assist in the Applicant in providing affordable housing, and there are no bases for concluding that there are any specific adverse impacts or violations of state or federal law.
C. Waiver Requests
The Applicant has identified the following development standards that would physically preclude construction of the Project as designed.
Development
Standard Source Description Explanation
SVMC § 9-24.050 (A)
(B) (C) (D) Table 2-3.
Minimum
building
setbacks to
property
lines of 20
feet.
The Project is designed with ten foot setbacks. This
development standard would physically preclude
construction of the Project as designed, which was
intended to address a variety of site constraints due to proximity to the Ventura County Watershed Protection
District Channels. Because the Project is a DBL
Qualifying Project, the City must waive this
development standard.
458
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Joaquin Vazquez
February 27, 2026
Development
Standard Source Description Explanation
SVMC Sec. 9-24.050
(A) (B) (C) (D) Table
2. Minimum
building
interior side
yard
setbacks
from
property
lines of 15
feet.
The Project is designed with ten foot setbacks. This
development standard would physically preclude
construction of the Project as designed. Because the
Project is a DBL Qualifying Project, the City must
waive this development standard.
SVMC § 9-30.080
(B)(2)
Minimum
setbacks
between
buildings of
20 feet.
The Project is designed with setbacks between buildings of seven feet. This development standard would
physically preclude construction of the Project as
designed. Because the Project is a DBL Qualifying
Pro
ject, the City must waive this development standard.
SVMC § 9-34.080 (D) Garage
width
standards:
12 x 20 feet
The Project is designed with garage widths of 10’-10” x 20’. This development standard would physically
preclude construction of the Project as designed.
Because the Project is a DBL Qualifying Project, the
Cit
y must waive this development standard.
To the extent that the City believes that these waivers might not be necessary because the Project could be designed differently to eliminate the concern about physical preclusion, that approach is not permitted under the DBL.
The concept of asking a project applicant to propose an alternative design in order to reduce or eliminate requested waivers for a DBL Qualifying Project was rejected by the California Court of Appeal in Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346-1347 (known as Wollmer II). In particular, the court flatly stated that “standards may be waived that physically preclude construction of a housing development meeting the requirements of a density bonus, period. The statute does not say that what must be precluded is a project with no amenities, or that amenities may not be the reason a waiver is needed. ”2
2 Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346-1347 459
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Joaquin Vazquez
February 27, 2026
More recently, the decision in Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, underscores that the City cannot and should not require an alternative design with fewer waiver requests: “the interpretation of section 65915 set forth by the court in Wollmer leads us to conclude that the City (or, by extension, the Association via this lawsuit) could not demand that [the developer of a DBL Qualifying Project] remove the courtyard or redesign its building to satisfy the Association’s subjective concerns.”3
Here, developing the Project as designed will require the waiver of certain development standards that would physically preclude the construction of the Project. Moreover, the Project satisfies the requirements of the DBL. As such, the design of the Project or proposed units is not subject to re-design or modification by City staff, and any waivers necessary to allow this design must be granted unless the City can make the findings required by section 65915(d). There is no evidence that such findings can be made here, and the waivers should therefore be granted without further documentation required from the Applicant.
D. Reduced Parking Ratios
While the DBO does not contain any provisions relating to the reduced parking ratios available under state law, the DBL is clear that local jurisdictions must allow reductions to typical ratios based on unit types. Calculations pursuant to the DBL4 are as follows:
Unit Type Spaces Per Unit Number of Units Parking Required One Bedroom 1 space 3 3 spaces
Three Bedroom 1.5 spaces 20 30 spaces
Four Bedroom 2.5 spaces 37 92.5 spaces
60 units 125.5 spaces
Based on the foregoing, the Project is only required to provide 126 parking spaces pursuant to the DBL. The Applicant is proposing to include 137 spaces.
3 Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775. 4 Gov. Code § 65915(p)(1).
460
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Joaquin Vazquez
February 27, 2026
II. CONCLUSION
We hope that the information provided above proves useful to you and City staff as you continue with your evaluation of the Project. Our client is committed to helping the City to address its housing needs, including units for very low income households, while providing an outstanding product. We are hopeful that you can discuss with City staff and move review of the Project toward completion in short order. The Applicant reserves its rights under state and local law, including the DBL.
If you have questions about any of the issues discussed herein, please feel free to contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Timothy M. Hutter
TMH
Enclosures
cc: Sal Provenza
461
EXHIBIT A
462
1451 Quail Street, Suite 204 Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dir: 949.208.7248 | Fax: 877.279.6159
Date: 2/16/26
To: Sal Provenza of Sentry Property Group
From: Michael Marini of Planet Home Living
Re: Attached vs. detached construction costs
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Oak Road South project plans. Before sharing the budget estimates, I would like to share a little about Planet Home Living.
About Planet Home Living
Planet Home Living is a Newport Beach-based homebuilder founded in 2007. Planet Home Living creates thoughtfully designed residential communities throughout Southern California emphasizing high-quality architecture, walkability, and contextual design that fits into existing neighborhoods.
The communities include a wide variety of product types from high- density entry -level condominiums and townhomes to small lot detached homes and multi -million dollar luxury estates in areas like Los Angeles, Costa Mesa, Chatsworth.
As the founding principal of Planet Home Living, I have over 25 years of experience in the real estate development industry, with a primary focus on attached and detached residential and mixed- use, urban infill projects. Prior to founding Planet Home Living, I was Director of Operations at The Olson Company and Simpson Housing. I earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of California, Irvine, where I majored in Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering and Construction Management. I have been a California State licensed Civil Engineer since 1992.
Oak Road South Construction Costs
I have familiarized myself with the land plan and conceptual architecture. This is a product I have built and would be very interested in working with you. I do believe the small lot detached product proposed by KTGY is the most appropriate for this submarket.
Based on my experience and discussions with the head of the purchasing department, I recommend budgeting $80 to $90 per square foot for the vertical construction costs to build the 57 detached houses as planned. The triplex will cost more than the detached homes but given their smaller size, one-car garage and specification level, I would budget $120 per square foot. These costs include all hard costs and labor for the vertical construction but excludes all soft costs, in- directs, general conditions, insurance, permits and warranty, some of which vary based on home price and schedule.
I also reviewed the product shown on the townhome land plan you provided. I am very familiar with that product and it costs approximately $135 to $140 per square foot to build, significantly more expensive than the detached homes and the triplex currently proposed.
As you can see, I have extensive experience building and would be honored to build Oak Road South. Thank you for considering Planet Home Living and I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely.
Michael Marini
Docusign Envelope ID: 2457501A-9F34-42B3-89F5-DC76C18911FC 463
EXHIBIT B
464
4 Venture Suite 335, Irvine, CA 92618
949.933.7410
Oak Road South Owners LLC February 19, 2026
c/o Sentry Property Group
Attention: Sal Provenza
530 Technology drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92694
RE: Oak Road South Vertical Construction Cost Estimate Dear Mr. Provenza,
As a follow up to our meeting last week, we reviewed the conceptual architectural plans prepared by KTGY dated November 17, 2025, with the goal of providing you with an estimated cost to build each of the detached homes as planned. Single family homes, and these designs in particular, are very efficient to construct. The total vertical construction cost for the detached homes is estimated to be $9,083,208*. Below is our breakdown by floorplan:
Floorplan Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3
Size 1,693 SF 1,803 SF 2,020 SF
Cost/SF $90/SF $88/SF $84/SF
Cost Per Unit $152,370 $158,664 $169,680
Total Cost $3,047,400 $3,490,608 $2,545,200
* Please note this total does not include the attached triplex but that building would cost approximately $150/SF (or $324,000) to build because it includes much smaller attached homes (720 SF each).
We also reviewed the conceptual architectural plans prepared by KTGY dated April 10, 2024, that included an alternative design with a four townhome plans. We have built several projects with similar product and it is typically far more expensive to build the attached homes. The total vertical construction cost for the townhomes is estimated to be $13,376,739. Below is our breakdown by floorplan:
Floorplan Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4
Size 1,224 SF 1,378 SF 1,435 SF 1,497 SF
Cost/SF $140/SF $134/SF $130/Sf $129/SF
Cost Per Unit $171,360 $184,652 $186,550 $193,113
Total Cost $3,255,840 $4,985,604 $2,238,600 $2,896,695
With over 30+ years of construction experience building over 1,300 projects valued at over $500 million, we have confidence that these construction cost estimates are suitable for budgeting purposes. Once full construction drawings are ready for our review, we can provide a more detailed estimate for your consideration. We would appreciate the opportunity to be your general contractor for this new community. Thank you again for the time last week and please stay in touch as the project moves forward.
Sincerely.
IRONSIDE BUILDING LLC
David French
Docusign Envelope ID: A216E8E1-58DC-469C-9B4A-AB42B69EEEF8 465
S-1
GPA20240001 ZS20240003 PDS20240005 TT20240004 Supplemental (ngb)
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
MEMO
RANDUM
May 13, 2026
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sean Gibson, Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 11.A.2 FOR
A HEARING TO CONSIDER A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE
CHANGE, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP,
TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM
MODERATE DENSITY AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION
FROM RESIDENTIAL MODERATE DENSITY [RMOD] AND
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY [RM] TO RESIDENTIAL HIGH
DENSITY [RH], IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 60-UNIT, 2-STORY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT. THE
PROJECT INCLUDES AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AND IS EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA); LOCATED AT 1761, 1801, AND 1807 OAK ROAD
The Planning Division has received four correspondences on the project, three from James McGillis on April 25, 2026, April 22, 2026, and April 21, 2026 (Exhibits 1-3); and one from Gary and Peggy Bright on May 12, 2026 (Exhibit 4). Staff is responding to the comments as follows:
Correspondences from James McGillis focused on tree preservations and cultural resources (Exhibits 1-3).
Staff Responses:
1. A Phase I Cultural Resource Report was prepared for the project by Envicom Corporation in May 2024 and updated in January 2026 (Exhibit 5). The report determined that there were no unique historical or archaeological resources within the project site. There are conditions incorporated into the project to ensure regulatory compliance in the event of an unanticipated discovery of historical or archaeological significance. The subject trees are not listed by the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board. With the lack of cultural resources on the site, the trees do not meet the City's criteria listed in Simi Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Section 2-3.504 of Title 5 - Cultural Heritage, for reference to the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board.
2. Tribal consultation, as required by Senate Bill (SB) 13, was conducted by the City.
Project notification letters, including site plans and the Phase I Cultural Resource Report were provided to 15 tribes on December 17, 2025, as requested by the
SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA ITEM NO.
11.A.2.
466
S-2
GPA20240001 ZS20240003 PDS20240005 TT20240004 Supplemental (ngb) Native American Heritage Commission, with the consultation period ending on March
18, 2026. The Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians requested tribal monitoring during grading and ground disturbance activities, and this is required by conditions *A-31 and *A-32.
3. Richard Campbell, a California-registered Landscape Architect and Consulting arborist, prepared a tree report that was submitted as part of the project and attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit 3. The City’s certified landscape consultant, Jordan and Bain Landscape Architects, Inc., confirmed the studies meet the City’s requirements laid out in the City’s Mature Tree Preservation Ordinance SVMC 9-
38. Note that the age of a protected tree is not addressed in the ordinance, but the size, health, and aesthetic quality are.
4. No Tree Removal Permits have been issued for the project. Per Planned Development Condition C-2, the applicant is required to obtain a Tree Removal Permit before removal or approval of the grading plans. Required tree replacement will also be addressed through the Final Landscape plans, demonstrating the replacement value being met on site, with any unmet amount being paid to the City.
5. Staff visited the site on April 21, 2026, in response to complaints about an oak tree on site being trimmed. Staff observed the trimmed tree and informed the project applicant. The applicant responded that the tree was altered by a trespasser without their permission and informed the City to that effect.
6. The Ventura County Fire Protection District reviewed the proposed project for compliance with Fire Code requirements regarding access and landscaping and provided conditions of approval, which have been incorporated into the resolution.
The City did not receive a recommendation to remove or preserve existing trees.
7. The Initial Study covered the entire project site.
Correspondence from Gary and Peggy Bright focused on access to their property at the south end of the project site (Exhibit 4).
Staff Responses:
1. The applicant’s conceptual landscape plan showed a planter blocking access along the easement to the south across the bridge. The architectural, fencing, and grading plans show access being maintained. The applicant has provided a revised conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 6) addressing the oversight, which will be incorporated into the final exhibits prior to final approval. 467
S-3
GPA20240001 ZS20240003 PDS20240005 TT20240004 Supplemental (ngb)
2. C
ondition *A-25 for the project requires that access to the properties south of the flood control remain open during and after construction, and that signage be posted to advise residents of the development that there is no access to Oak Fern Court via Oak Road.
________________________________
Sean Gibson, Deputy Environmental
Services Director/City Planner
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 – Correspondence from James McGillis regarding Item No. 11.A.2, dated April 25, 2026
Exhibit 2 – Correspondence from James McGillis regarding Item No. 11.A.2, dated April 21, 2026
Exhibit 3 – Correspondence from James McGillis regarding Item No. 11.A.2, dated April 21, 2026
Exhibit 4 – Correspondence from Gary and Peggy Bright regarding Item No. 11.A.2, dated May 12, 2026
Exhibit 5 – Phase I Cultural Resource Report for the Oak Road South Project, Simi Valley, California. Westlake Village, CA
Exhibit 6 – Revised Conceptual Landscape Plan
468
Outlook
Re: Oak Road South Project (Update)
From James McGillis
Date Sat 4/25/2026 5:42 PM
To Naren Gunasekera <[email protected]>
Cc Mayor Cavanaugh <[email protected]>; Ivana Christmann <[email protected]>; Council Member Ayala <[email protected]>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect a phishing attempt please report it as phishing. Learn how.
Thank you for your reply. Because of its cultural and natural significance, I feel passionately about saving that tree.
Recently, I received an email from our City Manager indicating a tree survey (or study?) was completed for the Oak Road South Project, but the report did not include an estimated age for the tree. I wrote back to her, indicating that any tree report for such a specimen should include an estimate of age. To omit that information is to sweep the possible significance of the tree under the rug. As you know, Simi Valley has a Mature Tree Protection Ordinance that focuses specifically on indigenous oak trees.
The current development proposal allows a zoning change from medium-density to high-density, while ignoring the city's tree ordinance. In my opinion, the project does not qualify as a "Near Miss" regarding the zoning requirements. It misses by a "country mile" and should be completely replanned to include the retention of both the "Heritage Oak" and its neighboring tree as well. A third mature oak, located by the Arroyo Simi, has already been damaged and will vanish if the project is approved.
Does Simi Valley's existing tree ordinance mean anything? At the last City Council meeting, the Mayor accepted its 26th annual "Tree City USA" award and honored Arbor Day, which was also celebrated that week. That night, I spoke on behalf of the Heritage Oak, pointing out the inconsistency of accepting such an award while quietly allowing the destruction of the very thing being honored. What takes precedence: bending over backward for another high-density development or adhering to established city law?
Best Regards,
Jim McGillis
4/27/26, 12:54 PM Re: Oak Road South Project (Update) - Naren Gunasekera - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane4 1/3
EXHIBIT 1
469
Virus-free.www.avast.com
On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 10:41 AM Naren Gunasekera <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. McGillis,
We are confirming receipt of your letter and email below regarding the Oak Road South project. The staff report will be released on May 8th on the City's website. The correspondence will be incorporated into a supplementary staff report that will be provided a t the hearing.
Warm regards,
Naren
Naren Gunasekera
Principal Planner/Zoning Administrat
or
Department of Environmental Services
City of Simi Valley
(805) 583-6863
---------------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons designated as the intended recipient above, and may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, use, retransmission, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete it completely from your computer system.
---------------------------------------------------------------- From: James McGillis
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 4:10 PM
To: Lee Kennedy <[email protected]>; Kenneth Rice <[email protected]>; Ivana Christmann <[email protected]>; John Tolson <[email protected]>; Allan Mann <[email protected]>; Mayor Cavanaugh <[email protected]>; Mayor Pro Tem Litster <[email protected]>; Council Member Ayala <[email protected]>; Enviroservices <[email protected]> Subject: Oak Road South Project (Update)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect a phishing attempt please report it as phishing. Learn how.
April 21, 2026
Oak Road South Project Update
Project Applicant – Sentry Property Group, LLC
4/27/26, 12:54 PM Re: Oak Road South Project (Update) - Naren Gunasekera - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane4 2/3
470
In a previous document, I provided details regarding the Oak Road “Heritage Oak” and at least one other Valley Oak tree threatened by development within the combined Oak Road South Project area. I indicated that someone (the developer?) had recently disfigured and illegally “pruned” the Valley Oak nearest to the Arroyo Simi. While it did not destroy the tree, it significantly altered both its appearance and potential survivability.
According to the Mature Tree Preservation Ordinance, the city’s Planning Department oversees the protection of Mature trees within the city. The City Planning Commissioners act as the City’s Tree Advisory Board.
According to the Simi Valley Mature Tree Preservation Ordinance, “All Mature Native Oak Trees are protected.” Unless the developer can produce a tree removal permit, it is guilty of violating the law.
Additionally, on August 20, 2014, Community Rebuild Asset Holdings went before the Planning Commission with Case No.: TP-S-673, regarding the property at 1801 Oak Road. The plan consisted of splitting the existing lot into three residential medium density lots. While the existing house would be maintained, its garage was to be demolished to make way for a driveway to the two new lots.
A mature Valley Oak growing on the new Parcel 1 was to be removed. Supposedly, the tree suffered from “a large basil cavity, decay of trunk/limbs, and a history of limb failure.” Unless the basil cavity was structurally impairing the tree, it should not be the basis of removal. From time to time, any Valley Oak hundreds of years old, will shed dead limbs. That does not indicate imminent collapse. To me, this sounds like a convenient rationale for removal of an otherwise healthy tree. Since the 2014 project was not completed, in 2026, the “1801 Tree” remains in place and continues to live a healthy life.
Now, in 2026, we have a new and different set of issues to consider. The current developer, Sentry Property Group, LLC has already partially destroyed one mature tree on their property. It appears they are trying to shield themselves with the idea that at least two mature trees (the Heritage Tree and the 1801 Tree) will not receive consideration for long-term protection.
In their developer’s package, provided to Neighborhood Council #2, there is no mention of existing trees, anywhere on the subject site. Is the developer attempting to “pull a fast one?” Did the Simi Valley City Planning Division get bamboozled, or did it provide a secret, undocumented tree removal permit?
Any way you look at it, this project has not received proper public or tribal resources review. All work related to the proposed development should halt immediately. Prior to even the tentative approval of this project, a study of this possible “relict forest” should be completed and publicly aired. To support my position, I cite attached relevant sections of the Simi Valley Municipal Code.
Best Regards,
Jim McGillis
4/27/26, 12:54 PM Re: Oak Road South Project (Update) - Naren Gunasekera - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane4 3/3
471
Outlook
FW: Oak Road South Project (Update)
From Enviroservices <[email protected]>
Date Tue 4/21/2026 5:22 PM
To Sean Gibson <[email protected]>; Stratis Perros <[email protected]>; Naren Gunasekera <[email protected]>
1 attachment (51 KB)
260421_Oak_Road_South_Municipal_Code.pdf;
From: James McGillis
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 4:10 PM
To: Lee Kennedy <lkennedy@simiv
alley.org>; Kenneth Rice <[email protected]>; Ivana Christmann <[email protected]>; John Tolson <[email protected]>; Allan Mann <[email protected]>; Mayor Cavanaugh <[email protected]>; Mayor Pro Tem Litster <[email protected]>; Council Member Ayala <[email protected]>; Enviroservices <[email protected]> Subject: Oak Road South Project (Update)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect a phishing attempt please report it as phishing.
Learn how.
April 21, 2026
Oak Road South Project Update
Project Applicant – Sentry Property Group, LLC
In a previous document, I provided details regarding the Oak Road “Heritage Oak” and at least one other Valley Oak tree threatened by development within the combined Oak Road South Project area. I indicated that someone (the developer?) had recently disfigured and illegally “pruned” the Valley Oak nearest to the Arroyo Simi. While it did not destroy the tree, it significantly altered both its appearance and potential survivability.
According to the Mature Tree Preservation Ordinance, the city’s Planning Department oversees the protection of Mature trees within the city. The City Planning Commissioners act as the City’s Tree Advisory Board.
According to the Simi Valley Mature Tree Preservation Ordinance, “All Mature Native Oak Trees are protected.” Unless the developer can produce a tree removal permit, it is guilty of violating the law.
Additionally, on August 20, 2014, Community Rebuild Asset Holdings went before the Planning Commission with Case No.: TP-S-673, regarding the property at 1801 Oak Road. The plan consisted of splitting the existing lot into three residential medium density lots. While the existing house would be maintained, its garage was to be demolished to make way for a driveway to the two new lots. 4/27/26, 12:10 PM Mail - Naren Gunasekera - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFiZmUwYTQwLTJkZjMtNGQ4OS1hNzg2LWI4MDU1MDJiZGQxNAAQALko2iCzizRNgqTp%2B1sgv7Y… 1/2 EXHIBIT 2
472
A mature Valley Oak growing on the new Parcel 1 was to be removed. Supposedly, the tree suffered from “a large basil cavity, decay of trunk/limbs, and a history of limb failure.” Unless the basil cavity was structurally impairing the tree, it should not be the basis of removal. From time to time, any Valley Oak hundreds of years old, will shed dead limbs. That does not indicate imminent collapse. To me, this sounds like a convenient rationale for removal of an otherwise healthy tree. Since the 2014 project was not completed, in 2026, the “1801 Tree” remains in place and continues to live a healthy life.
Now, in 2026, we have a new and different set of issues to consider. The current developer, Sentry Property Group, LLC has already partially destroyed one mature tree on their property. It appears they are trying to shield themselves with the idea that at least two mature trees (the Heritage Tree and the 1801 Tree) will not receive consideration for long-term protection.
In their developer’s package, provided to Neighborhood Council #2, there is no mention of existing trees, anywhere on the subject site. Is the developer attempting to “pull a fast one?” Did the Simi Valley City Planning Division get bamboozled, or did it provide a secret, undocumented tree removal permit? Any way you look at it, this project has not received proper public or tribal resources review. All work related to the proposed development should halt immediately. Prior to even the tentative approval of this project, a study of this possible “relict forest” should be completed and publicly aired. To support my position, I cite attached relevant sections of the Simi Valley Municipal Code.
Best Regards,
Jim McGillis
4/27/26, 12:10 PM Mail - Naren Gunasekera - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFiZmUwYTQwLTJkZjMtNGQ4OS1hNzg2LWI4MDU1MDJiZGQxNAAQALko2iCzizRNgqTp%2B1sgv7Y… 2/2 473
Mature Tree Preservation Ordinance
Simi Valley Municipal Code
9-38.030 - Prohibition of Removal
No "protected tree" shall be removed, cut down, relocated, or otherwise destroyed, except as provided for in Sections 9-38.070 (Tree Removal Permits) through 9-38.090 (Exceptions), below. (§ 5, Ord. 1085, eff. January 6, 2006)
9-38.040 - Guidelines for Reports on Protected Trees
A. Tree report required. Where a person wishes to remove or relocate one or more protected tree(s) or develop a site which contains protected trees, the Director shall cause a tree report to be prepared on those trees for review by the Environmental Planner.
B. Authorized to prepare reports. Tree reports shall be prepared by an arborist, horticulturist, or registered landscape architect.
C. Precise locations required. An applicant who wishes to remove a protected tree(s) or develop a site which contains protected tree(s) shall provide to the City the precise vertical and horizontal location within plus or minus one foot of each protected tree on the subject parcel and the generalized locations of all protected trees within 20 feet of the project boundary. 9-38.050 - Guidelines for Trees Associated with Urban Development A. Desirability of preserving protected trees. Initial project layout, design, and grading shall recognize the desirability of preserving protected trees with appropriate modifications and adjustments to accommodate preservation and maintenance by locating the best candidates in areas where preservation is feasible.
B. Appropriate safeguard considerations. Design of the grading and other improvements shall reflect consideration of the following safeguards:
1. Location in minimum growing areas as required by individual species;
2. No disruption or removal of structural or feeder roots;
3. Fencing of trees at or beyond their drip lines during grading and construction activities;
4. No filling, cutting, development, or compaction of soils within the drip line; and
5. Other measures required by the species of tree to be preserved as recommended by the consulting arborist, horticulturist or landscape architect.
C. Practicality of preserving all healthy trees.
1. It is recognized that the complete preservation of healthy trees may sometimes conflict with normal land developmental considerations (e.g., proper circulation, drainage, grading, safety and provisions of utilities).
474
2. Within a given development, it may not be practical to preserve all healthy trees and therefore the City and the developer shall be willing to compromise the goal of complete tree preservation in order to address other public safety and design concerns.
3. In these instances, the design of the development shall address preservation of the most desirable and significant of the healthy trees and the developer shall utilize creative land planning techniques to achieve this end.
D. Proposed preservation plan.
1. The Commission, when reviewing development plans, shall determine the adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed preservation plan.
3. Following approval of a development, the developer shall submit grading and precise landscaping plans detailing the approved preservation plan.
4. The locations of all protected trees shall be indicated on these plans by the number of the tree as described in the tree study, with details indicating which trees shall be preserved or relocated, and which shall be removed.
5. The plans shall be approved by the Director and the City Engineer. 9-38.070 - Tree Removal Permits
The Director shall give priority to tree inspection requests based upon threats to public health and safety. The Director may defer action on the Tree Removal Permit and refer the request to the Commission for determination.
A. Tree Removal Permit required.
1. No protected tree shall be removed, relocated, cut down, or otherwise destroyed, unless a Tree Removal Permit has been first issued by the Director.
2. The Director shall establish the format and information required for a Tree Removal Permit in compliance with this Chapter.
B. Site inspection. Before issuance of the permit the Director shall inspect the premises involved and shall designate the tree(s) to be removed or moved.
C. Director's determination required. A Tree Removal Permit shall not be issued for the removal or relocation of any tree on any parcel associated with a proposal for urban development, unless the project has been approved by the City or unless the Director determines that the immediate removal of the tree is required because of the condition of the tree with respect to disease, danger of collapse of all or any portion of the tree, proximity to an existing structure, or interference with utility services.
E. Landscaping plans.
1. Landscaping plans for a development project shall incorporate the conditions of approval of the Tree Removal Permit.
475
2. Trees to be preserved in place and relocated trees shall be shown on the plans and the plans shall indicate where the appraised value of removed trees has been applied to upgrading the tree plantings beyond minimum planting requirements. 9-38.080 - Standards for Granting or Disapproving Tree Removal Permits A. Mandatory criteria. The determination by the Director to issue a Tree Removal Permit, shall be based upon the following criteria:
1. The condition of the tree with respect to disease, danger of collapse of all or any portion of the tree, proximity to an existing structure, or interference with utility services, or, in the case of a mature native oak tree, interference with an addition to an existing single-family detached dwelling;
2. The necessity to remove a protected tree in order to construct improvements which allow economic enjoyment of the property;
3. The number of protected trees existing in the neighborhood;
4. Good forestry practices (e.g., the number of healthy mature trees that a given parcel of land would support);
5. Whether or not removal of the tree is necessary to construct required improvements within the public street right-of-way or within a flood control or utility right-of-way;
6. The suitability of the tree species for use in an urban area; and
7. The tree has outgrown the space in which it was planted and is damaging surrounding pavement or structures.
B. Notification of pending permit.
1. Notification in writing shall be made to the Council, Commission, and City Manager of the pending issuance of a Tree Removal Permit.
2. Notification shall include the criteria to be used in granting the permit based on the criteria identified in Subsection A (Mandatory criteria), immediately above.
C. Action after seven days. Upon expiration of a minimum of seven days after notification, the permit shall be issued or disapproved.
476
Oak Road South Project - Neighborhood Council 2 Meeting, April 14, 2026 Project Applicant – Sentry Property Group, LLC
Planning Commission Tentative Date: May 13, 2026
On April 14, 2026, I attended a meeting of Neighborhood Council #2 and received a printed package regarding the proposed Oak Road South Project. Although I could not stay for the formal presentation, there were three representatives of Sentry Property Group, LLC, waiting to speak. I assume that they presented the project as printed in the NC #2 packet.
On April 15, 2026, I visited the proposed development site. As you may know, the site includes a southerly, undeveloped plot of land, which is bisected by a flood control channel. Although there is a bridge allowing access, there are no current plans to develop the smaller lot, beyond the flood control channel. On the northern edge of the proposed development, there are two existing residential homes. Each has a lot size of ¾ acres. Currently, the publicly accessible portion of Oak Road ends where the more northerly of the two residential lots begins. After that, continuing south, it is designated as a Dead End and Private Driveway.
Not seeing the “private driveway” designation sign, I continued past the two residences and proceeded to the flood control channel. A wide bridge is hidden beneath a hard layer of dirt. There, looking back to the middle of an open field, I spotted a large Valley Oak tree, sixty feet tall.
Immediately, I noticed that someone had recently used a high lift and chainsaw to cut branches off the tree, up to about twenty-five feet. Some of the fallen limbs were six inches in diameter. Although the tree was not destroyed, its formerly natural appearance was drastically altered. Despite any potential fire hazard, the huge branches were left on the ground to rot. That kind of activity set the tone for the rest of my visit. Who would go to the trouble to disfigure such a beautiful tree, which is two hundred years old?
Returning to the north on Oak Road, the southerly residential property looked occupied, but no one was outside. At the second, more northerly property an older couple was standing just behind an open gate. I immediately stopped to talk with them about the planned development. The noise from the current construction project, just north of their property was constant.
I do not want to expose the couple by name or speak for them in any way. They were quite friendly and described what was happening at their home of thirty years. Ongoing construction noise from the north was incessant, from 7 AM until 7 PM each day. There is nothing illegal about that, but the noise had made their home feel unlivable. They said that the existing construction, just past their garden wall would include residential buildings three or four stories high.
Regarding the proposed Oak Road South Project, the couple said that they had no other option but to sell to the developer. The widened private road extension to the new development would have come within about five feet of their front door. The neighboring residential property was occupied by renters, they said. Had the couple refused the developer’s offer (contingent upon the approval of the new project), their formerly peaceful home would have become an isolated island in a sea of high-density development.
EXHIBIT 3
477
I have already mentioned the damaged oak tree, down the road. The gentleman was unaware of the issue, but asked, “Would you like to see our oak tree?” I grabbed my camera as they ushered me in to their spacious backyard. I was not ready for what I saw next.
There, before me was the most intricate and beautiful succulent garden I have ever seen. It was like something out of a Sunset Magazine in the 1960s. It featured pathways, seating areas and every species of succulent imaginable. Then I realized that the whole garden was dappled with sunlight.
As I looked up, toward the afternoon sun, I beheld the largest Valley Oak tree I had ever seen. My guess is that it was eighty feet tall, with up-twisted branches as large as any oak trunk I have ever seen in Southern California.
“It must be two hundred years old, ” I said. “No, five hundred years old, ” he replied. From the ground, the tree had an umbrella-shaped crown with weeping or drooping lower branches. It gave the impression that it was reaching for the sky. The gentleman then broke my stunned silence. “We let nature trim it. We have another out back that was hit by lightning, but still it grows, ” he said.
Astonished by the beautiful garden and it majestic, cathedral of a tree, I felt like a trespasser. That natural sanctuary, at least half a millennium old had been nurtured by this couple for the past thirty years, or about sixteen percent of its life. They had raised their kids there and all the other neighborhood kids, as well. But soon it would all be gone. “The Fire Department said it had to go, ” the gentleman said. Not wanting to overstay my welcome, I thanked them and departed their hidden paradise. Still, I was puzzled. Somehow, a tree that had survived for five hundred years was now considered a fire hazard.
When I returned home, I reviewed the Project Overview, wondering what I could glean from its words and images. I had a brief laugh when I realized that both oaks that I have described here are large enough to appear on the tiny “Site” diagram on Page 2. On Page 5, I oriented myself to the “Conceptual landscape plan and site layout. ” The first oak that I described is nowhere to be seen. It is to be replaced by a “Secondary Recreation Area. ” The Succulent Garden and Heritage Oak will be replaced by “Enhanced paving at project entrance. ”
I will not criticize the developer’s waiver requests, which include residential driveways only ten feet long and side-to-side separation of primary structures by only seven feet. I will not criticize that there is no on-street parking anywhere in the sixty-unit development. I will not criticize the total of only twenty off-street parking spaces for both residents and their guests. I will not criticize that the minimum square footage of a market-rate home is 1,609-2,200 sq. ft. while the three “affordable units will be 720 sq. ft., each with a single car garage, one bedroom and one bathroom.
According to current California State Law, the project qualifies for a “near miss” of the Simi Valley’s General Plan Amendment and Zone Change requirements. That means the project cannot be challenged for not meeting every term of the current zoning laws. Like a “near miss” in the game of horseshoes, the project scores enough points to win legal approval.
But wait, there may be other unresolved issues with the Oak Road South Project. 478
1. If indeed, the County Fire Department signed-off on the proposed site plan, was the Heritage Oak considered a fire hazard? Or was tree removal required to allow fire apparatus to drive on a loop through the development, without backing up to exit the development?
2. Since the “initial environmental review” study, which is supposedly “in progress,” did it include only the property currently owned or controlled by the developer. Were the two existing residential lots included in any aspect of the “initial environmental review?”
3. Since “compliance with the tribal cultural resources” are required, have any tribal representatives been contacted or consulted regarding this ancient, ancestral gathering place?
This proposed development meets almost all the city’s requirements, but it does so with a minimum expenditure and a maximum payoff, when completed. The fact that it will be a parking nightmare and almost impossible to serve with existing fire apparatus is besides the point. The point seems to be to force the approval of a minimally tolerable, but legal development on the Simi Valley community at large. The plan itself, looks like it was written by Claude, polished with Chat GPT, put once through Gemini, and completed under the rules of Grok. As an overall development, it resembles AI slop.
The entire high-density project plan requires a quiet and unmentioned removal of one, if not two cultural Heritage Oak trees. I am not accusing anyone of malfeasance, obfuscation, or deliberate avoidance of the facts that I observed on the ground. My suggestion is that the entire project be brought to a halt until all culturally and environmentally sensitive aspects of this proposal be thoroughly investigated and remediated. The developer should be barred from further tree trimming or destruction, as well.
After a thorough review of the entire project, it should be redesigned to protect both natural and cultural resources. The Simi Valley Recreation and Parks Department should be brought in to assess the opportunity to create a “pocket park,” which will protect these irreplaceable resources for future generations to enjoy.
If the developer would like to salvage its standing in the community, it will reduce the size of the development, sparing the entire lot on which the Heritage Oak now stands. The current house could be razed, the road widened to the south and a more reasonable and kindhearted project could be designed for the smaller resulting footprint. The developer could either adhere to its existing offer to buy the lot, but with the following suggested covenants. • After completing the purchase of the Heritage Oak property, the developer should pay all moving costs for the displaced couple.
• After demolition of the existing suburban home, the developer should construct one of their “affordable units” on the south side of the residential property. • The ADU-type home would be deeded back to the original owners, with a ground lease to extend for their natural lifetimes.
• The current owners could then move to and live out their lives in a quieter neighborhood, but with full availability to the ADU, garden and the existing artist’s studio. They could function as volunteer hosts to the new Heritage Oak Park and stay overnight as often as they like.
479
• After completion of the above-mentioned improvements, the current Heritage Oak residential lot should be deeded over to the Simi Valley Recreation and Parks District. • Before all that, there should be plans to provide immediate improvements, including appropriate security fencing and an active audio/video security system. • When the current residence is gone, the pocket park itself could easily have off-street parking for half a dozen cars.
• School children from every school in Simi Valley should be invited and transported, one class at a time to the new park. The involvement and commitment of school aged children in the future of Heritage Oak Park could become a hallmark of cooperation between the Simi Valley Recreation and Parks District and the Simi Valley School District.
There could be so much more to this story if you, the recipient of this email will join the cause to save the Simi Valley Heritage Oak. The Oak Road South project is tentatively scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on May 13, 2026. Author an email to each of the Simi Valley Planning Commissioners and City of Simi Valley Planning Division - Environmental Services Director. Tell each of them that you request an immediate halt to the development, until all natural and cultural resources on the site receive a full study. Nothing else should be done until tribal leaders and a certified arborist study the site. In addition, there should be no California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for this project.
480
Gary and Peggy Bright
May 12, 2026
City of Simi Valley / Planning Commission
2929 Tapo Cyn Road
Simi Valley, Ca. 93063
Attention Planning Commissioners regarding meeting on May 13, 2029 Case No; GPA-2024-001/Z-S-2024-003/PD-S-2024-005/TT-2024-004 Ken Rice
[email protected]
Ivana Christmann
[email protected]
Allan C. Mann
[email protected]
John Tolson
[email protected]
Lee Kennedy
[email protected]
My wife and I live on the 2nd property south of the flood control.
I spoke with Mr. Gunasekera and asked if there was a way I could view the proposed plans as I’m not able to come to the City or attend any meeting as I’m handy capped and home bound due to medical issues. We had a nice conversation regarding Oak Road. I asked what the layout of the road would be as it approached the bridge at the flood control. He explained that the road would curve to the west just before the bridge and travel down the south side of the development. I asked if there were any designs that would keep the public from going over the bridge and traveling farther south. He said no as the road would not continue farther south.
Exhibit 4
481
Hearing this I was setback as Oak Road is our only way in and out to LA Ave. I asked how it was blocked off and he said there will be a planter there. I explained that Oak Road is our (my neighbor south of me as well) only way in and out. He acted surprised and had me repeat that information. He then mentioned that he had no idea regarding the facts of our ingress and egress. He did say that he was going to call the developer and make sure they changed their design.
I then suggested a few items as I now realized that this project would be negatively affecting us.
- Signage along Oak Road posting dead end, private property, do not enter.
Along with no right turn and yield as anyone exiting the development should only turn left to LA Ave.
- An electric gate should be installed on the north side of the flood control with a key pad for a code and the ability to be opened if a power outage occurred. - Home owners association should be responsible to the upkeep and any maintenance of signs, gates, etc.
- Naturally everything would need to be approved by the City and Fire Department.
He also directed me to the neighborhood council #2 meeting on April 14th and explained that the “basic development plans” should be associable on line. I did look up and reviewed what I was able to see and read. The online posting seems to be very hard to make out with any details.
I’m aware that the plans are available in the library but I’m not able to get there and would not be able to view the plans that will be presented at the public hearing. I sure wish there was a way the City could help out with situations like this to accommodate the handclapped.
I am a firm believer that any property owner has the right to develop there property.
However, with out being able to see what if any changes have been made to the NC #2 plans I viewed. I would have to submit in this communication that my wife and I are not in favor of the development as it negatively affects our property, health and safety and ability to freely travel north to LA Ave. Along with the possibilities of directing public traffic onto private property. Please remember that Oak Road is currently an undeveloped private easement.
I’m also very concerned that after months of the various departments within the City (including but not limited to Planners, Building and Safety, Public Works and Fire Department, ) that no one picked up on the fact that others lived farther south down 482
Oak Road. I can’t imagine that no one did a site inspection/ review and didn’t recognize the obvious.
Our hope is that Planning Commission can refer this project back to staff to redesign the project to accommodate our reasonable concerns along with any other items that City Planners, Building and Safety, Public Works and Fire Department would require. Normally this could be resolved with a list of conditions that the developer would agree to. However, its clear to us that this area needs to be reviewed now that it has been brought to your attention. There could be road drainage issues, health and safety issues, etc,
Due to the fact that I’m just submitting this letter and am no able to at least read it into the record during public comments. I’d like to request that the Case Planner or another party to this public hearing read it into record for me. Sence one of the City of Simi Valleys function is to ensure the safety of its residence. It seems only natural that someone from the City could read this into the record allowing the public to hear our concerns and have it placed into the file of this development.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
I would respectfully request that each of the Planning Commissioners simply acknowledge the receipt of this communication via email.
Respectfully submitted:
Gary and Peggy Bright
483
/gid00011/gid00028/gid00041/gid00048/gid00028/gid00045/gid00052/gid00001/gid00133/gid00131/gid00133/gid00137 /gid00017/gid00035/gid00028/gid00046/gid00032/gid00001/gid00010/gid00001/gid00004/gid00048/gid00039/gid00047/gid00048/gid00045/gid00028/gid00039/gid00001/gid00019/gid00032/gid00046/gid00042/gid00048/gid00045/gid00030/gid00032/gid00001/gid00019/gid00032/gid00043/gid00042/gid00045/gid00047 /gid00017/gid00019/gid00006/gid00017/gid00002/gid00019/gid00006/gid00005/gid00001/gid00007/gid00016/gid00019/gid00165 /gid00016/gid00028/gid00038/gid00001/gid00019/gid00042/gid00028/gid00031 /gid00020/gid00042/gid00048/gid00047/gid00035/gid00001/gid00016/gid00050/gid00041/gid00032/gid00045/gid00046/gid00001/gid00013/gid00013/gid00004 /gid00030/gid00193/gid00042/gid00001/gid00020/gid00032/gid00041/gid00047/gid00045/gid00052/gid00001/gid00017/gid00045/gid00042/gid00043/gid00032/gid00045/gid00047/gid00052/gid00001/gid00008/gid00045/gid00042/gid00048/gid00043 /gid00136/gid00134/gid00131/gid00001/gid00021/gid00032/gid00030/gid00035/gid00041/gid00042/gid00039/gid00042/gid00034/gid00052/gid00001/gid00005/gid00045/gid00036/gid00049/gid00032/gid00001/gid00199/gid00132/gid00131/gid00131 /gid00010/gid00045/gid00049/gid00036/gid00041/gid00032/gid00164/gid00001/gid00004/gid00028/gid00039/gid00036/gid00033/gid00042/gid00045/gid00041/gid00036/gid00028/gid00001/gid00140/gid00133/gid00137/gid00132/gid00139 /gid00017/gid00019/gid00006/gid00017/gid00002/gid00019/gid00006/gid00005/gid00001/gid00003/gid00026/gid00165 /gid00135/gid00132/gid00137/gid00136/gid00001/gid00006/gid00163/gid00001/gid00021/gid00035/gid00042/gid00048/gid00046/gid00028/gid00041/gid00031/gid00001/gid00016/gid00028/gid00038/gid00046/gid00001/gid00003/gid00039/gid00049/gid00031/gid00163/gid00164/gid00001/gid00020/gid00048/gid00036/gid00047/gid00032/gid00001/gid00133/gid00140/gid00131 /gid00024/gid00032/gid00046/gid00047/gid00039/gid00028/gid00038/gid00032/gid00001/gid00023/gid00036/gid00039/gid00039/gid00028/gid00034/gid00032/gid00164/gid00001/gid00004/gid00028/gid00039/gid00036/gid00033/gid00042/gid00045/gid00041/gid00036/gid00028/gid00001/gid00001/gid00140/gid00132/gid00134/gid00137/gid00133 /gid00002/gid00048/gid00047/gid00035/gid00042/gid00045/gid00165/gid00001/gid00024/gid00028/gid00052/gid00041/gid00032/gid00001/gid00003/gid00036/gid00046/gid00030/gid00035/gid00042/gid00126/gid00164/gid00001/gid00017/gid00035/gid00163/gid00005/gid00163 /gid00187/gid00139/gid00139/gid00132/gid00188/gid00001/gid00139/gid00138/gid00140/gid00183/gid00135/gid00138/gid00131/gid00131 /gid00004/gid00016/gid00019/gid00017/gid00016/gid00019/gid00002/gid00021/gid00010/gid00016/gid00015 /gid00020/gid00036/gid00040/gid00036/gid00001/gid00023/gid00028/gid00039/gid00039/gid00032/gid00052/gid00164/gid00001/gid00004/gid00028/gid00039/gid00036/gid00033/gid00042/gid00045/gid00041/gid00036/gid00028 /gid00016/gid00028/gid00038/gid00001/gid00019/gid00042/gid00028/gid00031 /gid00020/gid00042/gid00048/gid00047/gid00035/gid00001/gid00017/gid00045/gid00042/gid00037/gid00032/gid00030/gid00047 484
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE
OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT, SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
OAK ROAD SOUTH OWNERS LLC
c/o Sentry Property Group
530 Technology Drive #100
Irvine, California 92618
Prepared by:
ENVICOM CORPORATION
4165 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 290
Westlake Village, California 91322
Author: Wayne Bischoff, Ph.D.
May 2024
(Updated January 2026)
485
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
i
SECTION PAGE
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOLOGICAL SETTING 6
3.0 CULTURAL SETTING 7
4.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT 15
5.0 DATABASE RESULTS 20
6.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS 27
7.0 PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 40
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 41
9.0 CONCLUSIONS 43
10.0 REFERENCES 44
FIGURES
Figure 1 The 2025 Project Location in Los Angeles County, California 2 Figure 2 The 2025 Project Site 3
Figure 3 The Four Project Parcels 4
Figure 4 Satellite Image of the Project Development Footprint 5 Figure 5 The Victorian Strathearn House 14
Figure 6 The 1903 Santa Susanna USGS Map 21
Figure 7 The Project Area in a 1928 Image, Showing the Project Properties 21 Figure 8 The 1941 Santa Susanna USGS Map 23
Figure 9 The Project Area In a 1945 Image, Showing the Project Properties (Center) 23 with Orchards Present and a House Off Oak Road On the Southern Parcel Figure 10 The 1951 Santa Susanna USGS Map 24
Figure 11 The Project Area In a 1953 Image, Showing a Large Barn Associated 24 With the 1940s Residence
Figure 12 The 1969 Santa Susanna USGS Map 25
Figure 13 The Project Area in a 1978 Image 25
Figure 14 A February 2022 Satellite Image 26
Figure 15 Project Parcel 6370-140-155 (Facing South) 28 Figure 16 The Middle of Project Parcel 6370-140-155 (Facing Northwest) 28 Figure 17 The South End of Project Parcel 6370-140-155, Area Just North of the Arroyo 29 Simi Creek Channel, Showing Fuel Mod Along the Channel (Facing Southwest) Figure 18 The Middle of Project Parcel 6370-140-155 (Facing West) 29 486
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
ii
Figure 19 The Middle of Project Parcel 6370-140-155 (Facing Northwest) 30 Figure 20 The Middle of Project Parcel 6370-140-155 (Facing Southwest) 30 Figure 21 The Middle Residential Building (Facing Northwest) 31 Figure 22 The Back of Project Parcel 6370-140-460 (Facing West) 31 Figure 23 Project Parcel 6370-140-450 Residence (Facing Southwest) 32 Figure 24 The Backyard of Project Parcel 6370-140-450 Showing Cleared Ground 32 (Facing Southwest)
Figure 25 A Graded Terrace (Center) Crossed the Site from the Large Oak Tree 33 Figure 26 The Largest of the Three Concrete Pads (Facing East) 33 Figure 27 The Middle-Sized Concrete Pad (Facing East) 34 Figure 28 The Smallest of The Three Concrete Pads (Facing West) 34 Figure 29 The Arroyo Simi Creek Channel (Facing West) 36 Figure 30 The Arroyo Simi Creek Channel, Showing Existing Connection Point (Facing North) 36 Figure 31 The Site Boundary of the Oak Road 1 Archaeological Site 37 Figure 32 APN 6370-140-235 Located South of the Arroyo Simi Creek (Facing Southwest) 38 Figure 33 The Survey Area Along the Arroyo Simi Creek 39 Figure 34 One of the Large Trees Found on the Southern Partial Parcel Survey Area 39 Figure 35 The Project Site, Located West of the “Trailer Park” in the Middle of the Image 40
APPENDICES
Appendix A: List of Previously Completed Cultural Resource Reports in the Project Site and Surrounding Study Area
Appendix B: SCCIC, NAHC, and the NHMLAC Request Letters, and the NAHC and NHMLAC Response Letters
Appendix C: California Department of Parks and Recreation Form for the Archaeological Site with the temporary name of “Oak Road 1”
Appendix D: Resume of Dr. Wayne Bischoff (Principal)
487
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
iii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Envicom completed a Phase I cultural resource assessment, field survey, and report of the proposed Oak Road South Project in 2025, which included the original 2024 project development footprint survey (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 6370 -140-450, 6370-140-460, and 6370 -140-155), plus a survey of Parcel 6370-140-325, located below Arroyo Simi, which the City added to the project in 2025. The location of the Project is in east Simi Valley on lands that were originally used for orchards and agricultur e, and as a residence from the 1940s through 1970s, but that have been undeveloped since the 1970s. Historic maps identified three separate structures that were on the southernmost of the three project parcels from roughly the 1940s through 1970s, when they were remove d. The 2024 field survey of the first three parcels completed by Envicom discovered three concrete pads that were associated with the three historic structures shown on older maps and historic aerial photographs of the site. The concrete pads were surrounded by a scant diffusion of historic material from the same time period, but the entire site away from the concrete features appeared to be heavily graded and impacted . The three concrete pads and associated diffuse artifact material were incorporated into a single historical archaeological cultural resource labeled Oak Road 1 for this project. Envicom evaluated the Oak Road 1 archaeological site and recommended that it was not eligible to the CRHR under any criteria. The 2025 field survey Parcel 6370- 140-325, located south of Arroyo Simi creek, was negative for cultural resources.
Due to the lack of prehistoric evidence on the properties, and the lack of Oak Road 1 site integrity and CRHR eligibility, Envicom recommended spot -check archaeological monitoring only for the project through construction -phase grading and excavation activ ity. Envicom also recommended contingency language to cover the unexpected discovery of older historical or prehistoric cultural resources during construction.
The NHMLAC record search determined that fossil resources were neither found on the Project properties, nor in the immediate surrounding area. Dibblee geological maps indicated that the entire Project was located within recent alluvial material, which was not sensitive for fossil resources. Envicom did not recommend monitoring for paleontological resources but did recommend contingency language to cover the unexpected discovery of fossil resources during construction. 488
1.0 INTRODUCTION
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Envicom Corporation (Envicom) completed in 2024 a Phase I Cultural Resource s Phase I Survey/Assessment for a proposed new residential development project (Project) located in the City of Simi Valley, Ventura County, California (Figure 1 and Figure 2). In 2025, the City requested that the triangle of land located within Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 6370-140-325, south of the Arroyo Simi , be included in the project development footprint. This 2025 cultural report version adds APN 6370-140-325 to the project cultural resource findings, analysis, and assessment.
The Project as proposed will remove existing single family residential buildings and replace them with multi-family residential units, new utilities, pavement, landscaping, and other support features . The proposed development is located on four parcels located at 1761, 1801, and 1807 Oak Road in the City of Simi Valley (Figure 3 and Figure 4). 1761 and 1801 Oak Road have standing residential buildings, but 1807 consists of a vacant lot that has two large cement house pads and no currently utilized structures .
Linear water control features associated with the control of the Arroyo Simi and its tributaries is located along the southern edge of the 1807 Oak Road parcel. The general location of the Project is as follows:
United States Geological Survey 7.5’ Quadrangle: Simi Valley East Township: N2; Range: W19
Latitude: 34° 16’8.34” North; Longitude: 118°40’36.06” West
The Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment in 2024 included a cultural resource record search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). The record search examined the Project property, plus a 0.25-mile buffer area (“study area”) around the Project to account for any cultural resources that may be immediately adjacent to the Project site and to determine the overall regional archaeological sensitivity of the Project (see Figure 1). A record search request was also submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to check their Sacred Lands File for possible Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) located within the project property or within the surrounding 0.25 -mile study area. Because APN 6370- 140-325 (the property added to the Project development footprint in 2025) is still within the original project “study area,” all of the original record searches remain valid and useable for the current report.
Additional databases examined during the Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment included historical regional maps, historical United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps, and historical Google Earth images. The University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) Library Historic Aerial Photograph Database was also examined. Because paleontological resources were a concern for the Project, a record search at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC) was also conducted. Again, because the APN 6370-140-325 was also examined as part of the original historical and aerial photographic analysis, all of the findings from the original 2024 database investigation remain valid and useable for the current report.
Finally, a pedestrian survey that examined the surface of the Project site for cultural resources was conducted according to OHP guidelines. APNs 6370-140-450, 6370- 140-460, and 6370- 140-155 were surveyed in 2024; APN 6370-140-325, south of the Arroyo Simi, was surveyed in 2025 . Any cultural resources identified by either the record searches or during the field survey were inventoried in this report, with California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) site forms completed separately for each resource.
489
1.0 INTRODUCTION
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
2 Figure 1: The 2025 Project location in Los Angeles County, California, with the surrounding 0.25- mile study area shown (2018 Simi Valley East Quadrangle Topographic Map, oriented north)
490
1.0 INTRODUCTION
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
3 Figure 2: The 2025 Project site, showing recent site conditions; the two residential buildings located at 1807 and 1801 Oak Road can be seen at the top of the project, and the two concrete building pads located on the 1761 Oak Road parcel can be seen in the middle of the Project development footprint (2022 Valtus Imagery, oriented north)
491
1.0 INTRODUCTION
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
4 Figure 3: The four Project parcels (oriented north)
492
1.0 INTRODUCTION
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
5 Figure 4: Satellite image of the Project Development Footprint, showing recent conditions (2020 Google Earth image, oriented east)
The purpose of the record searches is to identify any known cultural or tribal resources previously recorded within or immediately adjacent to the Project property, to provide cultural resource context for the Project from the examination of the study area, and to assess the overall cultural resource sensitivity of the Project region. A cultural resource is often defined as any building, structure, object, or archaeological site older than 50-years in age and can include historic or prehistoric locations of human habitation or occupation.
This definition is defined by the California Office of Historic Preservation guidelines, United States Department of the Interior guidelines, and 36 Code of Federal Regulations 60.4 of the National Register legislation. The two standing residential buildings located within the Project development footprint are not over 50 years in age and are, therefore, not of concern for this report as they do not meet the threshold to be inventoried as historic cultural resources.
493
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOLOGICAL SETTING
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
6 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOLOGICAL SETTING
The project is located within the Simi Valley foothills in east Simi Valley. Simi Valley is geographically separated by several low mountain ranges, namely the Simi Hills to the south and the Santa Suzanna Mountains to the north and east, which also separate Simi Valley from the nearby San Fernando Valley to the east . The original topography of the project area consisted of rugged, rolling foothills, with steep hillsides and smaller canyons, though today, much of the lower region is developed urban environment.
Arroyo Simi and is the primary local water source, which eventually drains into Calleguas Creek to the west, and from there, into the Pacific Ocean near Point Mugu. Many seasonal water drains take water from the hillsides into Arroyo Simi, creating a system of canyons and ravines throughout the Simi Foothills. The Simi Valley area has always had a semi-arid landscape, covered by sparse vegetation, which is dominated by perennial grasses, sage, buck weed, and yucca . Oaks and cottonwoods are located in valley areas that contain more moisture, but the majority of the hillsides are dominated by perennial grasses and short shrubs.
Today, the subject property has extensive remnants of the original native landscape, with residential and commercial development completely abutting the property to the south and east.
During prehistoric periods, the project area would have provided a number of animal and plant resources for Native Americans to eat . Deer can still be found in the area, and in the past, pronghorn, cougars, and black bear would have been present, as well as foxes and smaller predators . Numerous rabbits, squirrels, and other small mammals can still be found in the region, as can a number of reptile and bird species .
Freshwater fish would have been available in sag and fault ponds and springs, which also woul d have attracted migrant birds to the general region (USGS 1987). The major plant resources were acorns from a number of oak tree species, chia, buckwheat, black sage, cattails, basket grass, and yucca.
Simi Valley is complex geologically, mainly due to extensive faulting and uplift of the original marine layers. Sedimentary rock is common, with many sandstone layers that contain fossils from marine contexts.
The primary rock unit in the area is the Sespe Formation, which is a non -marine sandstone rock unit of roughly 25 to 45 -million years in age (Squires 1997). Later erosion has led to extensive areas of alluvial material, both older and newer in origin . Alluvial material includes poorly consolidated soi ls of eroding marine sediments of fine sands, silts, and gravel (Dillon 1994:5). Almost no bedrock can be found in the area, though sandstone formations are quite visible farther to the east.
Absent in the region are good sources of volcanic toolstone, such as andesite, basalt, or rhyolite, with most such material being brought into the area from surrounding sources by the prehistoric occupants of the area.
Examples of such imported regional material used by Native Americans included Monterey Chert from the Pacific coast, fused shale from Grimes Canyon farther to the west, and rhyolite from the Antelope Valley far to the north. Asphaltum – naturally seeping petroleum – was also collected in a number of Santa Suzanna Mountain seeps and foothill locations. This natural petroleum was used to make baskets watertight, and to act as glue for attaching arrowheads to shafts and for other craft tasks. 494
3.0 CULTURAL SETTING
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
7 3.0 CULTURAL SETTING
The Cultural Setting provides the historic, ethnographic, and archaeological and cultural resource context for the proposed project . Prehistoric context comes from past archaeological and ethnographic research .
Historic cultural context comes from a number of written documents, including both primary (original) documents and secondary (books, manuscripts, and articles) documents. Photographs and artwork can also provide cultural setting information . Both can be original images of subjects or landscapes with in their original context, or representational images that have been recreated or constructed at a later time.
The proposed project is located in the foothills west of Simi Valley within Ventura County, which is a subset of the Southern California geographic region . Many temporal chronologies have been produced within the archaeological literature for Southern California that attempt to identify between different prehistoric time periods by using defining characteristics related to artifact types, subsistence, trade, habitation, or culture. Examples of different chronologies can be found in Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984), Mason and Peterson (1994), Glassow (1996), Moratto (2004), and Arnold and Graech (2004:4). For this report, the project area follows the Glassow et al. (2007) time period chronology as this approach is more refined as to temporal divisions and incorporates more recent research and interpretation into period development.
3.1 PALEO-INDIAN PERIOD (11,000 – 9000 B.C.)
Paleo-Indian Period sites are the least common archaeological sites related to Native American occupation in California. Low numbers of Paleo-Indian sites come from smaller prehistoric population numbers during this time period, highly mobile populations that did not produce stable settlement sites, and drastic changes in the California shoreline from a rise in ocean levels, which has resulted in most coastal paleo sites being today under water. Often, the Paleo-Indian history of a region, such as the Southern Coastal Region, is built on inferences from the few known Paleo-Indian sites in the larger Southern California region.
Early coastal people probably concentrated on the exploitation of hunting both terrestrial and marine resources (Gamble 2008). They most likely followed a hunter -gatherer way of life that utilized a wide spectrum of accessible food sources . Moratto (2004) suggests that there is some incidental evidence that humans may have been in the coastal region of California much earlier than 11,000 B.C., however clear evidence for this conclusion remains elusive (Ciolek-Torrello et al. 2006).
The potentially oldest known human remains found in North America are the Arlington Springs Man, uncovered by Phil C. Orr in 1959 -1960 on Santa Rosa Island . Recent Radiocarbon Dating analysis undertaken by Dr. John Johnson of the Santa Barbara Natural History Museum revealed that the remains are from roughly A.D. 11,000 years B.P. (before present) (2015). The discovery of such ancient Native American remains on Santa Rosa Island demonstrates that the earliest Paleo-Indians had watercraft capable of crossing the Santa Barbara Channel, and lends credence as well to a “coastal migration/ kelp highway” theory for the peopling of the Americas, using boats to travel south from Siberia and Alaska (Erlandson 2007).
Native Americans of this time would have been highly mobile, with limited trade between groups . Small, family-centered groups may have come together as bands during certain annual meetings, linked with seasonality, however, such sedentary living was an exception in their wide-ranging yearly movement cycle.
A warming trend toward the end of the Paleo-Indian period led to distinct changes in available food sources.
Herds of large mammals were replaced by small to medium-sized mammals, which in turn led to changes in lifestyle for the earliest of California’s Native American groups. 495
3.0 CULTURAL SETTING
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
8 3.2 ARCHAIC PERIOD (9000 B.C. TO 7000 B.C.)
The Archaic Period for Southern California has been re -interpreted and refined often over the last fifty years. Some original chronology models extended this period to include almost the entire time between the migration of the Paleo -Indians and the formation of larger Native American settlements that occurred in late prehistoric times. The original Archaic Period has recently been refined and is now believed to include a number of distinct periods. This report uses the more recent interpretation of the Archaic Period, as the two thousand years after the transition away from a predominant hunting lifestyle to a less mobile hunting and gathering lifestyle by Coastal Native Americans (Glassow et al. 2007)
Changes during the Archaic Period are considered to be a response to changes in the climate and environment at the end of the Paleo -Indian period. The hunting and gathering lifestyle of Archaic Period people is characterized by a wide array of bifaces, choppers, scrapers, and other tools associated with a high-mobility strategy to exploit a wider range or regional resources . This period is poorly represented in the project area with few sites identified within this time period located in the region (Ciolek-Torrello et al. 2006). Many authors, therefore, begin the prehistoric chronology of the Southern Coastal Region at the end of this period, even though Native Americans most likely occupied the area from the earliest times.
3.3 MILLING STONE PERIOD (7000 TO 5000 B.C.)
The prehistoric chronology after 7000 B.C. has been divided into several distinct periods, as outlined by Glassow et al. (2007), and based on archaeological sites with known Carbon-14 dates. Earlier authors used different period indicators, or have different starting or ending dates than those presented below; however, for the purpose of this study, Glassow et al. represents the most recent, widely referenced chronology.
The Milling Stone Period is characterized by small, mobile Native American groups with a general shift in diet to the primary collecting of plant materials, accompanied by a dependence on groundstone implements associated with the grinding of seeds (Glassow 2007). Later periods saw a decrease in mobility and an increase in core group size, as dependence on seed-bearing plant materials intensified. These groups appear to have relied on a seasonal shifting of settlement, which included travels to and between inland and coastal residential bases.
Archaeological sites of this time period are characterized by abundant groundstone tools, especially manos (handstones, mullers) and metates (milling stones, slabs) (Glassgow et al. 2007:192 -203). Cultural sites often have thick midden deposits (soil build up over time from the activities of a habitation), cooking features, and long-term habitation of re-used locations within the yearly settlement cycle. Flaked tools are made of cherts, quartzite, basalt, and other lithic materials. Most archaeological sites from this time period have been identified on the coast, but inland sites have also been recorded . Residue and wear on groundstone tools indicate the milling of plant seeds and possibly hard nuts . Middens (refuse dumps) contain shellfish, some fish bones, and fragmented larger mammal bones, such as deer. Olivella shell beads appear at this time, indicating the beginnings of regional trade.
3.4 MIDDLE PERIOD (5000 TO 2000 B.C.)
Cultural sites identified as being within the Middle Period are characterized by changes in the size and shape of metates and manos, and the introduction of mortars and pestles. Mortars and pestles are primarily used to reduce harder or larger seed materials, such as acorns, into a processed food source. These changes signify a greater reliance on large seed food sources in the diet. The use of the acorn as a diet staple provided a high-calorie and storable food source, which in turn is believed to have allowed for greater population 496
3.0 CULTURAL SETTING
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
9 sedentism, and higher levels of social organization . Protein quantity in the diet did not change, however, the number and types of projectile points increased during this time . Projectile points included large side- notched, stemmed, and leaf-shaped forms; used for spears and atlatl darts.
Specialized sites during the Middle Period included temporary camps, single primary-focus activity areas, such as quarries, and long-term settlement locations. Regional trade, primarily between the mainland and the Channel Islands, took place with large numbers of diverse ornaments and shell beads found in mortuary settings dating to the period . Characteristic burial practices include fully flexed burials placed face -down or face-up and oriented toward the north or west (Warren 1968:2–3). Red ochre (a red-colored pigment) was commonly used, and internments sometimes were placed beneath cairns or broken artifacts. These later changes are thought to indicate an increase in social status differential and access to trade goods.
3.5 TRANSITION PERIOD (2000 B.C. TO A.D. 1)
The Transition Period indicated an intensification of prehistoric fishing and sea mammal hunting, with a reduction in shellfish utilization and an increase in regional trade networks (Glassow et al. 2007:200-203).
Several new artifacts appear in cultural sites of this period, including net weights, circular fishhooks, asphaltum-use, and the shift from the use of atlatl darts to arrow points. Subsistence is characterized by an increased emphasis on acorns, as well as local intensification of plant and small mammal food sources.
At this time, sedentism and long-term occupation of sites increased, accompanied by more elaborate social practices and formal cemeteries. Ritual burial objects become common and mortuary practices suggest an increase in social wealth and status.
3.6 LATE PERIOD (A.D. 1 – A.D. 1000)
Coastal sites appear to have had relatively dense populations by the end of the Middle Period, as well as an exchange relationship between the occupied coastal islands, the mainland coast, and interior regions that expanded during the Late Period (Glassow et al. 2007:203-205). Glassow et al. (Ibid.:203-205) note that certain trends continued during the Late Period, including substantial midden deposits, defined cemetery use, and the first evidence of true bow and arrow use. Overall, the variety and complexity of material culture increased during this period, demonstrated by a more diverse classes of artifacts. Glassow et al. (2007:204) summarize this period as:
“The period between cal A.D. 1 to 1000 was one of significant changes in technology, society, and economy. It is a period in which regional populations apparently grew too much higher levels and several important steps were taken along the road to increasing social and economic complexity.”
Small, finely knapped projectile points, usually stemless with convex or concave bases, point to an increased utilization of the bow and arrow rather than the atlatl and dart for hunting . Mortuary practices, including cremation and interment, were more elaborate than in preceding periods, and some burials contain abundant grave goods. Seagoing vessels were introduced and plank canoes allowed Native Americans the ability to hunt deep -sea fish, such as tuna and swordfish (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984:169 -203). As Glassow et al. (2007:211) state “…by the time of European contact, the Chumash and their coastal Tongva neighbors had hereditary political offices and a social elite, different sorts of regional organizations, and a well-developed shell bead currency that facilitated inter-village and cross-channel commerce.”
The prehistoric Late Period also saw the production of many beautiful and complex objects of utility, art, and decoration . These artifacts include steatite cooking vessels and containers, steatite arrow shaft 497
3.0 CULTURAL SETTING
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
10 straighteners, perforated stones, a variety of bone tools, and personal ornaments made from bone, stone, and shell, including drilled whole Chione (Venus clam) and drilled abalone. During this period an increase in population size was accompanied by the establishment of larger, more permanent villages with greater numbers of inhabitants (Wallace 1955:223). King (2000:75) identifies the presence of permanent inland villages at this time, noting evidence from the archaeological site of Talepop (Ta’lopop) site near Calabasas.
3.7 CONTACT PERIOD/ETHNOGRAPHIC PERIOD (A.D. 1000 – Missionization) The period after A.D. 1000 marks the Ethnographic Period of Native American history in Southern California, when the material culture and social organizations later observed by the Spanish explorers were being developed . The dominant Native American ethnographic groups in the project region were the Chumash people who centered on the Pacific coast between Malibu and San Luis Obispo, the Tongva, who were located from the San Fernando Valley south along the Pacific Coast, and the Tataviam, who centered on the upper San Fernando Valley and the mountains to the north . The project area is located in a poorly understood ethnographic region of Southern California due to the lack of historic records and the effects of Spanish Missionization on the region, which broke up traditional village structure . All three groups may have occupied the Simi Valley area at various times during the Ethnographic Period, or the region could have had mixed-group communities. Since all three groups had similar lifestyles, identifying one from the other, especially at inland archaeological sites, is extremely difficult.
The period from A.D. 1000 for roughly the next 300 -years represented a time of cultural change for Southern California Native Americans, with several researchers pointing to fluctuations in water temperature, climate change, and drought as prominent factors in social and material cultural changes from the Late Prehistoric Period to the Ethnographic Period . However, whether these changes were gradual or punctuated is still debated (Glassow et al. 2007:205).
Native American craft specialization did expand during this period, with specialized regional workshops, specialized tools, shell money introduction, and an expanded trade network . Craft specialization centered on the production of shell beads, both for adornment and for currency, lithic (stone) micro blades, deer bone tools, basket production, and basket asphalting . Current research points to a time of great change for the Native American people, with social reorganization, and fluctuations in subsistence models. The role of climate and weather is not fully understood in this variability (Glassow et al. 2007:206-208).
The relationship between the less chronicled inland areas and the coastal region is a current research question in Southern California archaeology; with different models of seasonal migration between the coast and the inland areas being proposed . It is known that exchange with coastal villages and interior villages involved social and political ties based on marriage, however the question remains whether actual movement of people occurred between the inland areas and the coast, or whether the exten sive trad e network of the Chumash was providing subsistence goods during seasonal scarcity (Glassow et al. 2007:208-210).
It is documented that fish and shellfish resources were transported to inland settlements, and that deer meat was transported from the inland areas to the coast, as well as deer bone tools and basketry . However, Glassow et al. (2007:2009) summarize that the lack of data from inland sites does not provide answers as to the actual level of social complexity at inland villages, nor what patterns of sedentism and regional trade were followed.
498
3.0 CULTURAL SETTING
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
11 The wealth of resources of the nearby Santa Barbara coast allowed the Chumash people to occupy a number of large village areas, as well as to retain a population density greater than other Native American groups in Southern California . Abundance of resources often allows societies that concentrate on hunting and gathering the ability to create complex social, political, and economic structures . As King (2011:1) notes, “pre-invasion Chumash society was also one of the most complex non -agricultural societies historically documented.” The archaeological and ethnographic literature concludes that populations in the inland areas were not as dense as those along the coast or on the Channel Islands (Glassow et al. 2007:208-210). Since this observation includes the Tataviam, the inland Chumash, and the inland Tongva, this conclusion is not useful in differentiating between different ethnographic populations.
3.8 EUROPEAN HISTORIC PERIOD (A.D. 1542 – PRESENT)
The earliest Spanish explorers of the California coast included Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo in 1542, Pedro de Unamuno in 1587, Sebastian Rodriguez Cermeño in 1595, Sebastián Vizcaíno in 1602, and Gaspar de Portolá in 1769 (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984: 251-258). These early expeditions were transient in nature, and rarely impacted the areas traveled through except as a novelty.
Starting in 1769, the Spanish government began establishing religious missions along the coast of California, as well as presidios (fortified settlements), and pueblos (ranch houses), in order to advance the colonization of the California region . Missions were established by the Spanish Government to act as outposts on the California frontier, with a goal of educating and converting Native Americans to Christianity. Missions also periodically housed Spanish soldiers, and also acted as the political representatives of the Spanish colonization program. Under the leadership of the Franciscan Father Junipero Serra, a total of 21 coastal missions were built, between 1769 and 1823 (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984:251- 270). Many of the Native Americans then living in California were “Missionized;” forcibly settled to local mission lands. In the project area, many Native Americans were forced to relocate to the San Fernando Mission (established in 1798 in the San Fernando Valley).
Missionization destroyed the traditional social subsistence system, disrupted regional trade networks, and transformed the Native American material culture into a mixture of surviving ethnographic artifacts and European goods. Disease, the loss of a lifestyle that had been adapted to the California environment for generations, and the predation of the Spanish all led to a rapid decline in Native American population numbers (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984:258-270, and Erlandson et. al. 2008:25). “Eventually, Missionization all but extinguished the traditional cultures of the coastal Indians in the 600 miles (965 km) between Tomales Bay and San Diego… In the area of the missions, Indian populations… were reduced by 90 percent or more, or even completely wiped out, and mission populations were maintained only by drawing from the surviving surrounding populations” (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984:269).
When Mexico won independence from Spain in 1822, the political system in California changed dramatically. Mexican land grants were awarded to soldiers, friends, and relatives of Spanish governors who ruled California between 1823 and 1846 . During that time, the land holdings and influence of the religious missions were greatly diminished.
The Mexican Revolution and the later dismantling of the mission system led to great disruptions in the lives of the remaining Native Americans, as mission lands were incorporated into the rancho system . Tensions between Native Americans and Mexican settlers and soldiers led to the Chumash Revolt of 1824, when the Chumash successfully occupied Mission La Purisma, Mission Santa Ines, and Mission Santa Barbara. The 499
3.0 CULTURAL SETTING
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
12 occupation was short -lived, but guerrilla warfare and raiding would continue throughout the Mexican period, and into the later United States territorial period (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984:270-278).
The missions and the mission lands were secularized in 1834, with the lands dispersed to individuals loyal to the new Mexican government. These land grants, both the original Spanish crown grants and the Mexican national grants, were primarily used as cattle and sheep ranches, which dominated most of Southern California (including the project area) up through the early 1900s (McCall and Perry 1990, Maulhardt 2010, Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984:270-278, and Erlandson 2008:105).
During the Mexican-American War, the territory known in Mexico as Alta California officially became a United States territory with the signing the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo between Mexico and the United States in 1848. American ownership of California did not reduce the decline in Native American population numbers. From 1848 to 1900, California Native Americans were reduced in number from 150,000 to 20,000; most of this decline came from the continued marginalization of Native Americans into the worst land and lowest economic positions in the new state. Other factors were the abuse of the European settlers, disease, and the impacts of government laws and policies that did not favor native populations (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984:296-297).
The American exploitation of California Native Americans culminated in the 1850 state legislation that essentially legalized the slavery of many native people:
“This law declared that any Indian, on the word of a White man, could be declared a vagrant, thrown in jail, and have his labor sold at auction for up to four months with no pay. This indenture law further said any Indian adult or child with the consent of his parents could be legally bound over to a White citizen for a period of years, laboring for subsistence only. These laws marked the transition of the Indian from peonage to virtual slavery; they gave free vent to an exploitative ethos of Americans who soon took advantage of the situation” (Castillo 1978:108).
At the same time, the United States government began a decades -long process of determining the fate of the original Mexican land grants in California. This process left ownership of many parcels and ranches in question for long periods of time. These land grants changed hands several times, especially after Mexican independence, until land ownership legal issues were finally settled in the 1870s. After this time, the original Spanish-heritage families began selling off smaller parcels to American investors, which expanded the ranching of cattle and sheep in the area (Maulhardt 2010:7-8).
Locally, the project property area was once part of the 114,000-acre Rancho Tapo land grant of 1795, which included Simi Valley west to Moorpark and east to Topanga . This grant was given by the Mexican government to Santiago Pico, and was only one of two land grants in Ventura County (the other being Rancho Conejo to the south) . The Pico Family occupied Rancho Simi, which included the Rancho Tapo land grant, through the early 1800s. Sheep and later cattle were ranched on the property; however, success was elusive, and much of the enterprise was ended in the 1820s. The ranch was final sold by the Pico Family to Jose de la Guerra y Noriega in 1842 (Miller 1968).
Though purchased in 1832 and officially transferred by the Pico Family in 1842, the land owned by Jose de la Guerra became contested after the 1848 war with the United States . Even though the U.S. honored Mexican citizen land ownership, the actual confirmation of ownership was not acknowledging until 1865, when Jose de La Guerra’s title to the Rancho Simi (the original Tapo land grant) was confirmed . During this time, the de la Guerra Family operated an extensive cattle ranching operation, with several thou sand 500
3.0 CULTURAL SETTING
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
13 head of cattle. Most of the cattle were sold for meat to feed the gold rush prospectors of the period. Sheep were also reintroduced, with a smaller herd being present (Miller 1968).
The ranch prospered until 1858, when local Native Americans razed the Rancho Simi adobe while the de la Guerra family was living in Santa Barbara. This razing led to de la Guerra setting up permanent residence at Tapo Alta in the upper Tapo Canyon area where permanent water could be found (Thompson 1961: 390).
Severe droughts led to most of the ranch animals dying off in 1861 and 1862. It was this loss of livestock, coupled with a larger national economic depression, which led the de la Guerra Family to mor tgage the Rancho Simi in 1861. By 1864, the mortgage holder, Isaac Cook, had full title to Rancho Simi, excluding the 14,400 acres of Rancho Tapo in Tapo Canyon . In 1870, Rancho Simi was sold to the California Petroleum Company for oil speculation. Rancho Tapo remained in the de la Guerra Family until 1877, when it was sold to Thomas R. Bard. This ended the ownership of Rancho Simi lands by the de la Guerra Family (Miller 1968 and Pitt 1966:134-139; 275).
Under American ownership, the Rancho Tapo area continued to be subdivided, with land use shifting to irrigation agriculture and commercial oil production. The construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad in Simi Valley opened outside markets to local produce and led to economic expansion throughout the valley.
Cattle and sheep grazing continued on some of the subdivisions, as well as the growing of hay, barley, and oats to feed the local herd animals . Eventually, fruit crops were also planted, with apricot s, grapes, and walnuts dominating. Later, citrus crops were introduced, with lemons and oranges replacing the apricot groves by the 1920s (Miller 1968).
Finally, after World War II, the increasing population of Southern California and demand for housing led to further subdivisions of the older Simi Valley land parcels . As the agricultural and ranch lots were continuously divided to develop housing tracts, Simi Valley became more and more urbanized . This urbanization began along the railroad and central road paths through the middle of the Valley, spreading outward toward the foothills over time.
The Strathearn family was a prominent member of the City of Simi Valley in the late 1800s. R.P Strathearn and his wife were originally from Scotland, and purchased 14,000 acres, 800 cattle and 400 bee stands. His son David Strathearn became one of the first members on the City committee and helped form the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District, which manages many of the City’s public parks, public spaces, and trails.
The Strathearn Family Ranch, now the Strathearn Historical Park and Museum, was also used in the 1920s through the 1940s as a backdrop for movies (Figure 5). Other locations in Simi Valley were also used as movie and television locations, including the shooting site for the 1970s and 1980s Little House on the Prairie, located in northern Simi Valley (Havens 1997).
Development accelerated with the construction of the State Road 118 freeway between 1968 and 1979, which connected Simi Valley with the San Fernando Valley to the east . Development within Simi Valley also spread to the west afterward, with new residential and commercial buildings filling more of the valley.
The process of developing the foothill areas of Simi Valley has slowed, but still taking place today.
501
3.0 CULTURAL SETTING
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
14 Figure 5: The Victorian Strathearn House, as seen today in western Simi Valley (facing north) (Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District photo)
502
4.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
15 4.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT
This section provides a complete outline of all relevant laws and guidelines for this project, as well as those related to the current CEQA status of the cultural resource.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21002(b), 21083.2, and 21084.1) Cultural resources are recognized as part of the environment under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is an inventory of the State’s historical resources. Criteria have been developed for determining whether a property is significant enough to be placed on the CRHR, and therefore, evaluating whether a cultural resource is or can be considered significant for the purposes of CEQA.
CEQA requires that all private and public activities not specifically exempted be evaluated against the potential for environmental damage, including effects to historical resources. It defines historical resources as “any object, building, structure, site, area, or place which is historically significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California,” as cited in Division I, Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 5021.1[b].
The California Register includes resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest that are not Federally -recognized. Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts), or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may also be eligible for listing in the CRH R, and are presumed to be significant resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise (PRC § 5024.1, 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 4850).
Lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate historical resources against the CRHR criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts to historical resources . CEQA rules of determining significance closely follow the criteria outlined by the NRHP, but which have been modified for state use in order to include a range of historical resources which better reflect the history of California (CCR §4852).
The similarity between the two criteria allows for a known cultural resource to easily be evaluated for both registers at the same time . Often, therefore, a cultural resource narrative provides enough information to justify a suggested evaluation for the resource under both laws and a recommendation of significance under both criteria.
Under CEQA, a cultural resource must meet one of the four following criteria as per PRC §5024.1(c) to be included or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR):
(1) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Archaeological sites are often determined to be significant under Criteria (4), with the argument being that impacts to the site would reduce the potential scientific research value of the resource.
503
4.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
16 Built environment resources (standing structures, bridges, canals, etc.) are often evaluated under Criteria (3), with architectural style or artistic features being the primary evaluation focus. Less frequently, cultural resources are evaluated as to Criteria (1), events or historic patterns, or Criteria (2), significant important persons. Some cultural resources are determined to be significant under multiple Criteria, such as a building constructed in a unique and important artistic style Criteria (3) that was designed by a regionally-important master architect Criteria (2).
The criteria for inclusion on the CRHR closely follow the federal criteria for inclusion on the NRHP, as outlined under the National Historic Preservation Act. Projects with a joint National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/CEQA component often evaluate a cultural resource for both listings simultaneously. It is important to note that a cultural resource is significant under CEQA if it is determined to be eligible for listing on the CRHR, not that it has to be listed on the CRHR. The formal listing process i s a potentially time-consuming and lengthy procedure that often is never completed, and the determination of eligibility for the CRHR provides a cultural resource equal status and protection under CEQA to that of formally listed cultural resources.
It should also be noted that, even though cultural resource consultants often are the first professionals to evaluate newly-discovered or re-examined cultural resources for significance and eligibility for listing on the CRHR, the Lead Agency for a project has the final determination of significance within the context of the project that is triggering the evaluation of eligibility . The Lead Agency can either concur with the recommendation of a cultural resource consultant, object to the recommendation, or d etermine that more work must be done by the project proponent.
California Penal Code (Section 622.5)
California Penal Code Section 622.5 provides misdemeanor penalties for injuring or destroying objects of historical or archaeological interest located on public or private lands, but specifically excludes the landowner.
California Public Resources Code (Section 5097.5)
The unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological resources located on public lands is defined as a misdemeanor by Public Resources Code Section 5097.5.
California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5)
This code section requires that further excavation or disturbance of land, upon discovery of human remains outside of a dedicated cemetery, cease until a county coroner makes a report . It requires a county coroner to contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 48 hours if the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the remains to be those of a Native American.
California Health and Safety Code (Section 7052)
Section 7052 of the Health and Safety Code establishes a felony penalty for mutilating, disinterring, or otherwise disturbing human remains, except by relatives.
California Public Resources Code (Section 5097.98)
If a county coroner notifies the NAHC that human remains are Native American and outside the coroner’s jurisdiction per Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, the NAHC must determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 24 hours of 504
4.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
17 notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Health and Safety Code §§ 88010-8011) establishes a state repatriation policy intent that is consistent with and facilitates implementation of the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act . The law ensures that all California Indian human remains and cultural items are treated with dignity and respect, encourages voluntary disclosure and return of remains and cultural items by publicly funded agencies and museums in California, and states an intent for the state to provide mechanisms for aiding California Indian tribes, including non-federally recognized tribes, in filing repatriation claims and getting responses to those claims.
California Senate Bill-18 (SB-18)
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. CEQA mitigation measures may not be applicable to SB-18 negotiation outcomes, as a culturally-defined “sacred site” cannot be mitigated or compensated.
California Assembly Bill-52 (AB-52)
AB-52 merges many elements of SB -18 with the standard State of California CEQA process, as well as giving voice to non-Federally-recognized tribal groups in the state.
AB-52 specifies that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource (TCR), as defined, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment under CEQA. AB-52 outlines lead agency consultation with all California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, defines what constitutes a TCR, provides examples of mitigation measures if the TCR will be impacted by the project, and explains how AB-52 consultation fits into the larger CEQA process.
AB-52 designates significant Native American cultural resources as Tribal Cultural Resources. The criteria of TCRs was clarified in June, 2017, by the publication of a new AB-52 technical advisory, which links the definition of a TCR to the updated Public Resource Code 21074 (2017:4-5).
State Guidelines for Cultural Resource Inventory, Evaluation, and Data Recovery Guidelines from the State of California on cultural resources are clear as to the roles and responsibilities of landowners versus the lead agency toward cultural resource identification, evaluation, and treatment .
Individual landowners, as per California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #1 505
4.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
18 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historical Resources , are responsible for the identification (inventory) of cultural resources and their evaluation for proposed development projects. The lead agency is responsible for determining whether the inventory and evaluation process was correctly followed, and determines the correct and appropriate level of investigation for data recovery situations, which normally is a negotiated process that involves the land -owner, the lead agency, and possibly interested third parties, such as Native American tribal groups.
The State of California also provides Lead Agencies and Consultants with a number of “best practice” professional guidelines for conducting inventory, evaluation, and data recovery project, as well as how to support recommendations of cultural resource sig nificance and how to write treatment and data recovery plans. Lead Agencies appraise cultural resource technical documents and resource recommendations based on whether the consultant followed professional methodology as outlined in the state guidelines.
Simi Valley General Plan
The Simi Valley General Plan provides a comprehensive historical, prehistoric, ethnographic, and paleontological context for the City, as well as provides known listed and important historic buildings and sites. Paleontological sensitivity is also provided. A map of known registered historic sites, local landmarks, and other important historic sites are also provided for the valley . The General Plan also provides the language of the Simi Valley and Ventura County Cultural Heritage Ordinances. Several historical resource policies are also put forth within the General Plan, which are reproduced below:
“Policy HR-1.1 Historical Resources Inventory. Contribute to the maintenance of Ventura County’s recorded inventory of historical landmarks for properties, objects, structures, and monuments having importance to the history or architecture of Ventura County. Photo documentation of inventoried historic sites or structures shall be required prior to demolition. (Imp A-1, A-2, LU-18, HR-1).
“Policy HR-1.2 Preservation or Re-Use of Historical Structures. Support the preservation of structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places, list of California Historical Landmarks, and/or the Ventura County List of Historic Landmarks. Provide incentives, such as waivers of application fees, permit fees, and/or any liens placed by the City, to properties listed in the National or State Register or the Ventura County List of Historic Landmarks in exchange for preservation easements. (Imp A-1, A- 2, LU-18, HR-1).
“Policy HR-1.3 Historical and Cultural Landmarks Recognition. Support the placement of monuments, photographs, markers, signs, or plaques at areas of historical or environmental interest or value. (Imp A-1, A-2, LU-18, HR-1).
“Policy HR-1.4 Adaptive Re-use. Support alternatives to demolition of historical sites or structures by promoting architecturally compatible rehabilitation or adaptive re-use. (Imp A-1, A-2, LU-18, HR-1).
“Policy HR-1.5 Historical Elements within New Projects. If preservation and/or adaptive re-use are not feasible options, require that proposed alteration of a historical site or structure incorporates a physical link to the past within the site or structural design. For example, incorporate historical photographs or artifacts within the proposed project; or preserve the location and structures of existing pathways, gathering places, seating areas, rail lines, roadways, or viewing vantage points within the proposed site design. (Imp A-1, A-2, LU-18, HR-1).
506
4.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
19 “Policy HR- 1.6 Offer for Relocation of Designated Historic Structure. Require that prior to the demolition of a designated historic structure, developers offer the structure for relocation by interested parties. (Imp A-1, A-2, LU-18, HR-1).
“Policy HR- 2.1 New Development Activities. Require that new development protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and/or mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated. (Imp A-1, A-2, LU-1, LU-2, LU-3, LU-18, HR-1).
“Policy HR- 2.2 Grading and Excavation Activities. Maintain sources of information regarding paleontological and archeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve paleontological or archeological findings. Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological, or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City. (Imp A-1, A-2, LU-2, LU-18).
“Policy HR- 2.3 Cultural Organizations. Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources.
Allow representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. (Imp A-1, A-2, LU-2, LU-18, HR-2).
“Policy HR- 2.4 Paleontological or Archaeological Materials. Require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Simi Valley or the County of Ventura, whenever possible. (Imp A-1, A-2, LU-2, LU-3, LU-18).
“Policy CS-2.8 Strathearn Historical Park and Museum. Encourage relocation of historical structures threatened with demolition to the Strathearn Historical Park and Museum and support activities, events, and historical programs occurring at the Strathearn Historical Park and Museum. (Imp A-1, A-2, LU- 18, CS-1)” (Simi Valley General Plan).
Simi Valley and Ventura County Cultural Heritage Ordinances “The Cultural Heritage Ordinance of the Simi Valley Municipal Code ([SVMC] Ordinance No. 1150 to Sections 2-3.501 et al of the SVMC) adopts many of the provisions of the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Ordinance ([VCOC] Ordinance No. 4225 to 1.3.5 of the VCOC); establishes the Simi Valley Cultural Heritage Board (Board); grants the ability of the Board to inventory, evaluate, educate, and make recommendations to the City Council about the eligibility of Cultural Heritage Sites, placement of aesthetic markers, state registration of resources, and amendments to the article; and provides definitions for Cultural Heritage Sites, Historic Districts, Historical Resources, Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, and Sites of Merit. The City’s Cultural Heritage Board is established in Section 2-3.505, and the Board functions are outlined in Section 2-3.506” (from Simi Valley General Plan). 507
5.0 DATABASE RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
20 5.0 DATABASE RESULTS
SCCIC and NAHC Record Searches
A request was sent to the SCCIC on April 9, 2024, to search the CHRIS database for cultural resources located within the Project properties and within the surrounding Project study area . The SCCIC provided the record search findings on May 3, 2024. No cultural resources were identified as being found within the Project properties or within the surrounding study area . A single cultural resource report (VN-00280) involved the northern two Project parcels (APNs 6370-140-450 and 6370-140-460), but not APN 6370- 140-155 to the south. This report consists of a map of survey areas examined by Michael Kuhn of the City of Simi Valley prior to 1980. Mr. Kuhn “conducted foot surveys following standard surveying techniques,” but did not create any write up of his findings unless he found a site . Though of limited value due to the lack of survey context and information, the map at le ast shows that a previous City employee determi ned that the northern two parcels had no cultural resources present . The S CCIC also identified twelve (12) cultural resource reports that involved part of the Project study area (Appendix A). Envicom examined the information provided in these reports and did not identify any issues for the proposed Project. Most of the older reports involved large parcels of undeveloped or agricultural lands . Later reports are dominated by utility or linear road studies.
A request was also sen t to the NAHC to search their database for TCRs within the Project site and study area on April 9, 2024. A response was received from the NAHC on April 23, 2024, with negative findings.
The SCCIC and NAHC databases were, therefore, both negative for cultural resources located on or near the Project development site.
Any findings from the SCCIC as to the physical location of cultural resources, except for public-knowledge built environment resources, is considered confidential by State law and are, therefore, not included in this report. As stated above, information on any positive findings from the NAHC will only be divulged to the Project lead agency through the AB-52 consultation process. Copies of the request letter to the SCCIC and NAHC are included in Appendix B of this report, as is the response letter from the NAHC. The Principal Author’s resume is provided in Appendix C.
Historical Map Database Search
The examination of historic maps included eighteen (18) historic USGS maps, dating between 1903 and 1979. Historical aerial photographs came from the UCSB Library Historic Aerial Photograph Database and from the Project Phase I environmental site assessment report (Sunil and Terwilliger 2022). The Phase I ESA report also contained additional site history information that was used in this report. Historical satellite images came from Google Earth database. All images are oriented north unless labeled otherwise.
The 1903 Santa Susanna USGS map shows regional roads, but no development of any kind on the Project properties ( Figure 6). The oldest aerial photograph in the UCSB Library historic aerial photography database is from 1928 (Figure 7). At this time, the Project properties are undeveloped, with orchards covering the northern part of the Project development footprint . The original natural Arroyo Simi creek path is visible at the southern end of the Project properties, without any artificial embankments. 508
5.0 DATABASE RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
21 Figure 6: The 1903 Santa Susanna USGS Map, showing no development on the subject properties (the red cross marks the Project location)
Figure 7: The Project area in a 1928 image, showing the Project properties (center) with orchards and the surrounding region in Simi Valley; the original natural Arroyo Simi creek path is visible at the southern end of the property (UCSB Historic Aerial Image Database) 509
5.0 DATABASE RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
22 The 1941 Santa Susanna USGS map shows similar site conditions, with no development except for orchards on the Project properties (Figure 8). A residential structure is shown on the southern edge of the orchards, which would have been located on the current parcel to the west of the Project development footprint. The 1943 Santa Susanna USGS map shows the same site conditions. An aerial photog raph from 1945 shows that the Arroyo Simi channel was modified by that time to be mostly channelized from the west up to Yosemite Road, however, the segment that runs through the Project development footprint was not modified at this time (Figure 9). The location of the house shown on the 1941 Santa Susanna USGS map is confirmed to be off the Project site to the northwest. Activity is shown on the Property properties at the southern edge of the orchard, with dirt roads visible on APN 6370-140-155 and possibly a house near Oak Road. The house is just north of the large oak tree that is still on the parcel, but that now has a road through the middle of the original residential footprint. An aerial photograph provided in the Project Phase I ESA report from 1947 shows the same site conditions (Sunil and Terwilliger 2022).
Any structure present on the Project site at this time, therefore, would have dated to between 1941 and 1945. This house was entirely removed at some time, with no current evidence of it remaining based on the pedestrian survey findings. The later construc tion of three buildings in the 1960s in the same general location probably accounted for much of the site grading. The location of the original house also appears to have been graded and disturbed and should be considered no longer present for cultural res ource inventory purposes.
The 1951 Santa Susanna USGS map shows the structure along Oak Road for the first time, roughly where the building was shown on the 1945 and 1947 aerial photographs (Figure 10). The orchards are no longer shown. The channelization of the Arroyo Simi creek is still not completed on the Project properties, with the creek area still shown as being natural. An aerial photograph provided in the Project Phase I ESA report from 1953 shows a large barn on the property, the orchards converted into agricultural fields, but the Arroyo Simi creek margin still natural (Figure 11) (Sunil and Terwilliger 2022). A 1959 aerial photograph shows a residence just north of the Project development footprint for the first time, but the same conditions on the Project parcels (Sunil and Terwilliger 2022). Much of the Arroyo Simi creek margins have been filled and grubbed by 1959, but the channel is still in a relatively natural state.
The 1951 Santa Susanna USGS map was revised in 1969 to show new buildings and other construction (Figure 12). This map shows three additional structures on APN 6370-140-155, where concrete pads were identified during the site field survey , which are still found on modern aerial images. All three buildings are found on a slightly older aerial photograph from 1967 (Sunil and Terwilliger 2022). The 1967 aerial photograph also shows the channelized Arroyo Simi creek channel for the first time, placing this construction at between 1959 and 1967. All of the buildings and structures located on APN 6370-140-155 are gone by a 1978 aerial photograph, with only the concrete pads remaining (Sunil and Terwilliger 2022) (Figure 13).
The 1960s buildings shown on the USGS maps and in aerial photographs were, therefore, constructed between 1959 and 1967, but were removed between 1969 and 1978, with the concrete pads still visible on the surface dating to that time period. All three of the foundations can be seen clearly on aerial and satellite photographs from 1978 to recent, with a February 2022 Google Earth satellite image being especially clear (Figure 14). Because these residential pads are over 50 -years in age, dating to between 1951 and 1969, they should be considered historical cultural resources for Project inventory purposes.
510
5.0 DATABASE RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
23 Figure 8: The 1941 Santa Susanna USGS Map, showing a residential building at the southern edge of the orchard, which was located on the property west of the Project development footprint (red cross marks the Project location)
Figure 9: The Project area in a 1945 image, showing the Project properties (center) with orchards present and a house off Oak Road on the southern parcel; the Arroyo Simi creek path has been channelized up to the Yosemite Road to the west, but is still natural on the subject properties at this time (UCSB Historic Aerial Image Database)
511
5.0 DATABASE RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
24 Figure 10: The 1951 Santa Susanna USGS Map, showing a residential building on the property along Oak Road, however, the channelization of Arroyo Simi is still not complete on the Project site (red cross marks the Project location)
Figure 11: The Project area in a 1953 image, showing a large barn associated with the 1940s residence, the orchards converted into agricultural fields, but the Arroyo Simi creek margin still natural on the property (Sunil and Terwilliger 2022)
512
5.0 DATABASE RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
25 Figure 12: The 1969 Santa Susanna USGS Map, showing three new residential buildings located partially where the concrete pads are currently located on the APN 6370-140-155 (red cross marks the Project location)
Figure 13: The Project area in a 1978 image, showing that the APN 6370-140-155 buildings have all been removed; the channelized Arroyo Simi creek is also visible (Sunil and Terwilliger 2022) 513
5.0 DATABASE RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
26 Figure 14: A February 2022 satellite image shows all three concrete foundations found on APN 6370- 140-155 (two in center and one in trees to above-left of the dirt road) (Google Earth image, oriented east)
The examination of historic map and aerial photograph databases was, therefore, positive for at least four, if not more, older historic structures being originally located on APN 6370-140-155. The oldest structure appears to have been fully removed prior to the construction of the several 1960s structures, which in turn were removed within a few decades of their being built. The multiple 1960s foundations and associated artifact material identi fied on the Project southern parcel surface will, therefore, be treated as a single archaeological site for Project cultural resource inventory purposes. Envicom will provide more information on the three existing foundations on a DPR archaeological site form, which will be included in Appendix D of this report. Envicom will also provide an evaluation of these foundations as to whether they would be eligible or not for the CRHR within the Recommendations section of this report.
Finally, there is a question of whether the Arroyo Simi creek channel should be dealt with as an historic built environment resource for the proposed subject Project. It is possible that new access points may be required to allow storm runoff into the Creek through the concrete walls of the historic Arroyo Simi creek channel, however, this action may also be undertaken as part of an associated housing development to the north of the subject Project, or as part of a City widening and improvements to southern Oak Road. This work, therefore, most likely will be part of a separate project managed by the City and should be addressed as a cultural resource during that planning and construction process unless directly included as part of this project by the City.
514
6.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
27 6.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
Envicom staff visited the Project property on April 9, 2024. Examination began with APN 6370-140-155, then moved north to APNs 6370-140-450 and 6370-140-460. APN 6370-140-325, located south of Arroyo Simi, was not surveyed at this time. APN 6370-140-155 is currently covered with oat grass, sparse bushes, and a small number of mature oak trees (Figure 15, Figure 16, Figure 17, Figure 18, Figure 19, and Figure 20). The northern two parcels involved long -used residential parcels, each having a central house and many associated outbuildings, landscaping features, fencing, and concrete pathways (Figure 21 , Figure 22, Figure 23, and Figure 24). Non-native plantings and trees are extensive on the residential parcels, with large parts of the ground also being free of grass due to domestic dog activity.
Pedestrian Survey Methodology
The project systematic survey follows standard recommended OHP methodology, where Envicom staff covered the area in five-meter transects where possible. Survey methodology transitioned to opportunistic survey methods where ground visibility was low, or when brush or terrain did not allow for the systematic walking off part of the project site, such as when concrete foundations were encountered . Opportunistic examination also took place in more open areas where patches of rodent burrows, deflation, or erosion provided a better understanding of the site subsurface conditions. During the site survey, notation of the site conditions, disturbances, or modern features were also made, visibility of the ground surface was noted, and any other conditions influencing the accuracy of the site survey were recorded, such as the time of year or weather conditions. Site soils, outcrops, vegetation, and natural impact area were additionally recorded.
2024 Field Survey Results
Ground visibility for the northern two residential parcels was excellent, with large surface areas clear for examination. No prehistoric or older historical artifacts or features were identified during the pedestrian survey. The site pedestrian survey also confirmed that the buildings present were recent and should not be inventoried as historic resources . Ground visibility on APN 6370-140-155 was fair to good, with large patches of surface area being exposed in dirt roads, deflated areas along Oak Road, mowed areas along the Arroyo Simi creek channel, in rodent burrows, and in large parts of the middle of the property where grass coverage was thinner. The author determined that enough of the surface was visible during the pedestrian survey to make accurate estimates of both the surface conditions and of the chance for prehistoric or older historic artifacts or features to be present. It was also noted that APN 6370-140-155 appeared to have been plowed or graded at one time due to the flatness of the landscape, which was later confirmed in older Google Earth images and historic aerial photographs . The majority of the parcel was engaged in agriculture historically, being involved with the operation of an active farm in the 1940s through 1970s, which also appears to have involved the terracing of the landscape in the middle of the parcel, probably as a buffer against overflowing of the Arroyo Simi creek (Figure 25). Later, fuel modification appears to have involved mowing of seasonal grass on the property, as well as grubbing along the Arroyo Simi creek.
During the field survey, the author mapped and recorded the three historical cement foundations previously noted that are located in the middle of APN 6370-140-155 (Figure 26, Figure 27, and Figure 28). A small amount of mixed historical artifacts were also found on the surface that dated to the time of occupation, which consisted of ceramic and glass bottle fragments, metal scrap, landscaping bricks, and plastics . This material was highly disorganized and appeared to have been plowed or graded, possibly during the razing of the structures in the 1970s. None of the material appeared to be in situ. 515
6.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
28 Figure 15: APN 6370-140-155 (facing south)
Figure 16: The middle of APN 6370-140-155 (facing northwest) 516
6.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
29 Figure 17: The south end of APN 6370-140-155, showing the area just north of the Arroyo Simi creek channel, showing fuel mod along the channel (facing southwest)
Figure 18: The middle of APN 6370-140-155 (facing west) 517
6.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
30 Figure 19: The middle of APN 6370-140-155 (facing northwest)
Figure 20: The middle of APN 6370-140-155 (facing southwest) 518
6.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
31 Figure 21: The middle residential building (facing northwest)
Figure 22: The back of APN 6370-140-460 (facing west)
519
6.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
32 Figure 23: APN 6370-140-450 residence (facing southwest)
Figure 24: The backyard of APN 6370-140-450,
showing cleared ground (facing southwest)
520
6.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
33 Figure 25: A graded terrace (center) crossed the site from the large oak tree shown to the west (facing northwest)
Figure 26: The largest of the three concrete pads (facing east) 521
6.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
34 Figure 27: The middle-sized concrete pad (facing east)
Figure 28: The smallest of the three concrete pads (facing west)
522
6.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
35 The concrete foundations consisted of cement with small aggregate, which matched the time period noted in the historical records. The foundations consisted of slab cement construction with embedded metal pins along the exterior. Sagging suggested that the foundations were not solid in construction, or had extensive settling that took place after use . The three slabs with the diffused artifact area were the only elements of the archaeological site and are shown on the cultural resource DPR form (Appendix C). The archaeological site was given the temporary name of “Oak Road 1” for this report and for Project discussion purposes prior to the SCCIC providing a permanent state site number.
No prehistoric artifacts or features were observed during the Project pedestrian survey, nor were any historical artifacts found that were older than the 1940s, which matches when residential structures were first located on the property. The survey findings were negative for cultural resources being located on the northernmost two Project parcels; however, the survey was positive for a single historical archaeological site in the middle of APN 6370-140-155, which consisted of the three existing concrete foundations and the associated diffusion of mixed historical artifacts. The lack of evidence of prehistoric occupation leads Envicom to not recommend Native American monitoring for the construction phase of the proposed Project.
The Arroyo Simi Creek Channel
As noted above, the channelized Arroyo Simi creek is located along the southern edge of the Project development footprint (Figure 29). This linear feature is currently outside of the proposed Project, though storm water will be removed from the proposed Project site into the Creek at a location currently not known.
As mentioned previously, this connection may be directly to the south, may be located within Oak Road if the road is widened and improved by the City of Simi Valley , or may involve a connection to a separate development project located immediately to the north . The location of the connection point is, therefore, currently unknown and most likely will involve a separate action organized and managed by the City. When addressed, the Arroyo Simi creek channel should be inventoried as a historic cultural resource. Impacts to this feature, however, will be small and will most likely be like other existing connection points found to the east (Figure 30).
Oak Road 1 Evaluation
The author concluded at the end of the Phase I pedestrian survey that the field survey and concrete pad mapping provided enough information to put forth recommendations of eligibility for the older historical archaeological resource identified as “Oak Road 1” in this report ( Figure 31 ). Surface visibility was adequate to determine whether features and artifact concentrations associated with the site were present, including the three concrete pads visible on the surface. Past grading appears to have greatly impacted the soils outside of the three concrete features, with visible artifacts exhibiting a large amount of damage and mixing. The artifacts present were unexceptional, were of low quantities, and appeared to be highly mixed by age. Most likely, razing of the standing buildings in the 1970s involved site grading and removal of a great deal of surface and near surface material around the concrete pads. The three concrete pads, therefore, are the primary evidence remaining from the Oak Road 1 site except for a scant diffusion of historic material outward from the foundations.
523
6.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
36 Figure 29: The Arroyo Simi creek channel (facing west)
Figure 30: The Arroyo Simi creek channel,
showing existing connection point (facing north)
524
6.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
37 Figure 31: The site boundary of the Oak Road 1 archaeological site (facing north)
The concrete pads are rectangular in shape and have no unique features or elements. The lack of associated intact artifact concentrations or additional features also reduces the quality of information from this site .
The author does not believe that further excavation, mapping, or recordation of the Oak Road 1 concrete features will provide any additional information or value toward the evaluation of the site under CRHR Criterion 4 (scientific information). Since the 1960s concrete pads are not exceptional, either in type or in construction, and large numbers of such concrete pads still ex ist in the State of California, the author recommends that the Oak Road 1 archaeological site is not eligible to the CRHR under Criterion 4.
525
6.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
38 Additionally, the documents research completed for the Project, both by the applicant and by Envicom, did not identify any information to support that the Oak Road 1 archaeological resource would be eligible to the CRHR under Criterion 1 (important events) or Criterion 2 (important people) . The Oak Road 1 archaeological site is also not recommended to be eligible to the CRHR under Criterion 3 (architectural importance) as the original standing structures no longer exist and the concrete foundations are not of unique construction style. Envicom, therefore, recommends that the Oak Road 1 historical archaeological site is not eligible to the CRHR under any criteria and can be impacted by Project activities to the point of being removed from the southern parcel without further mitigation . Finally, the lack of evidence of older archaeological material or features associated with the Oak Road 1 archaeological resource leads Envicom to not recommend full-time archaeological monitoring for the construction phase of the proposed Project.
Envicom instead recommends spot -check monitoring three times per week during construction project grading and utility excavation with contingency measures to address the unexpected discovery of archaeological material or features.
2025 Field Survey Results
In 2025, Envicom staff visited APN 6370-140-325, located south of Arroyo Simi, and surveyed the parcel (Figure 32, Figure 33, and Figure 34). Site conditions were like those encountered in 2024, with short grass and weeds covering the area surface and larger trees creating a partial canopy. Ground visibility was better than was encountered in 2024 ; however, the soils still appeared to be heavily bioturbated . No prehistoric, older historical, tribal, or fossil resources were identified during the 2025 field survey.
Figure 32: APN 6370-140-325 (left) located south of the Arroyo Simi creek (right) (facing southwest)
526
6.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
39 Figure 33: The survey area along the Arroyo Simi creek, showing excellent surface visibility (facing southwest)
Figure 34: One of the large trees found on the southern partial parcel survey area; the excellent visibility of the project area surface is again shown (facing south)
527
7.0 PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
40 7.0 PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Paleontological Assessment
The 1992 Thomas W. Dibblee Jr. geological map that uses the 1951 (updated in 1969) Santa Susana/Simi Valley East USGS quadrangle map as a base and shows the majority rock units for the east region of Simi Valley including the project area (Figure 35). The Dibblee geological map shows the entire project area as being 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.
Envicom submitted a record search request to the NHMLAC on April 9, 2024, with a request to search 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 a lluvial 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. Envicom does not recommend that further paleontological studies be conducted 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. However, there is always a chance that an isolated fossil resource can be found transported in recent alluvial material from more sensitive rock units. Envicom does, therefore, recommend contingency language to address any unexpected discovery situations.
Figure 35: The Project site, located west of the “trailer park” in the middle of the image, consists entirely of recent alluvial material (Qa) (1992 Dibblee Santa Susana Geological Map)
528
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
41 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
The result of the SCCIC database record search was negative for cultural resources located within or near the Project site. The NAHC record search was negative for TCRs within or near the Project properties. 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 . A formal DPR site form was produced for this cultural resource, and it has been recorded, mapped, a nd inventoried as part of this cultural resource report. The site consisted of three rectangular concrete pads and an associated scant diffusion of historic artifacts that date from the same time period . Envicom evaluated the Oak Road 1 cultural resource and recommended that it is not eligible to the CRHR under any criteria .
The 2025 field survey was negative for cultural resources.
Envicom found no evidence of CRHR- eligible older historical sites, prehistoric sites, or historic standing structures on the proposed Project development footprint, and does not recommend any additional cultural resource tasks for the Project . The Project paleontological assessment was negative for fossil resources being located on the property or in the nearby area, and the site is within an area known to not be sensitive for paleontological resources. Envicom does not recommend any additional paleontological resource tasks for this project . Envicom does, however, recommend spot -check monitoring of Project site grading and excavation activities due to the possibility of older historical artifacts or features that could be present on the Project properties, with contingency measures to address the unexpected discovery of archaeological or fossil resources. Envicom does not recommend Native American monitoring due to the lack of prehistoric or ethnographic sites in the Project area and due to the negative findings of the NAHC.
Recommendation 1: Archaeological Spot-Check Monitoring An archaeological monitor that meets the Secretary of Interior qualifications will provide spot- check monitoring of the Project site during grading and utility excavation. The purpose of having an archaeologist on site is to assess if any significant cultural or paleontological resources are encountered during Project excavation. Archaeological monitoring will be on a part -time monitoring schedule unless artifacts or features are encountered that warrant closer monitoring of the Project site . However, fulltime monitoring will not take place without the involvement of the appliance and approval from the City.
The archaeological monitor will collect any diagnostic prehistoric or older historical material uncovered through Project excavation and can halt construction within 30 -feet of a potentially significant cultural resource if necessary. Artifacts collected from a disturbed context or that do not warrant additional assessment can be collected without the need to halt grading. Discovery situations that do not lead to further assessment, survey, evaluation, or data recovery can be described in the monitor’s daily monitoring log.
However, if prehistoric features or older historical features are encountered, the Project “discovery” protocol should be followed (see below). If no artifacts or features are recovered, and if no discovery events take place, then a final compliance memo can be produced that contains all of the monitoring daily logs and provides a statement of compliance completion for the Project. If significant artifacts, features, or discovery situations are encountered during Project excavation activities, then a final Monitoring Report may be required by the City to adequately describe all of the findings and monitoring activities.
All artifacts recovered that are determined to have historical information value, with diagnostic or location information that may be important to California history, will be cleaned, analyzed, and described within the final Monitoring Report. All materials determined important will be curated at an appropriate depository or 529
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
42 returned to the landowner for public display if possible. If important materials are found during monitoring, a Curation Plan may be needed that is reviewed by the City prior to the publication of the Monitoring Report.
Recommendation 2: Archaeological and Fossil Resource Discovery Protocol If potentially significant intact archaeological or fossil deposits are encountered within an undisturbed context, then a cultural resource “discovery” protocol will be followed. If older historical or prehistoric features, artifact concentrations, prehist oric material, or sensitive fossil material is encountered during Project grading and subsurface excavation within native soils or original context, then all work in that area shall be halted or diverted away from the discovery to a distance of 30 -feet until a qualified senior archaeologist or paleontologist can evaluate the nature and/or significance of the find (s). If a senior archaeologist or paleontologist confirms that the discovery is potentially significant, then the Lead/Permitting Agency will be contacted and informed of the discovery.
Construction will not resume in the locality of the discovery until consultation between the senior archaeologist or paleontologist , the owner’s Project manager, the Lead/Permitting Agency, and any other concerned parties (such as Native American Tribal Groups), takes place and reaches a conclusion approved by the Lead/Permitting Agency. If a significant cultural or fossil resource is discovered during earth - moving, complete avoidance of the find is preferred. However, if the discovery cannot be avoided, further survey work, evaluation tasks, or data recovery of the significant resource may be required by the Lead/Permitting Agency. All individual reports will be submitted to the SCCIC or to the NHMLAC at the conclusion of the Project.
Recommendation 3: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains The inadvertent discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbances; State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 addresses these findings. This code section states that in the event human remains are uncovered, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The coroner must be notified of the find immediately, together with the City and the property owner.
If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, in accordance with the Health and Safety Code the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials and an appropriate re-internment site. The Lead/Permitting Agency and a qualified archaeologist shall also establish additional appropriate mitigation measures for further site development, which may include additional archaeological and Native American monitoring or subsurface testing, conducted and paid for by the applicant. All responses to the discovery of human remains will be outlined in a Recovery and/or Management Plan that will be submitted to the Lead Agency for final review.
530
9.0 CONCLUSIONS
THE PHASE II EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF
THE PRINTZ COLONY HOUSE AT THE STRATHEARN HISTORICAL PARK AND MUSEUM,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFONRIA
43 9.0 CONCLUSIONS
Envicom completed a Phase I cultural resource assessment, field survey, and report of the proposed Oak Road South Project in 2025, which included the original 2024 project development footprint survey, plus a survey of APN 6370-140-325, located below Arroyo Simi , that was added by the City to the project in 2025. The location of the Project is in east Simi Valley on lands that were originally used for orchards and agricultural, and as a residence from the 1940s through 1970s, but that have been undeveloped since the 1970s. Historic maps identified three separate structures that were on APN 6370-140-155, which dated to roughly the 1940s through 1970s, when they were removed . A 2024 field survey of the first three parcels completed by Envicom discovered three concrete pads that were associated with the three historic structures shown on older maps and historic aerial photographs of the site . The concrete pads were surrounded by a scant diffusion of historic material from the same time period, but the entire site away from the concrete features appeared to be heavily graded and impacted. The three concrete pads and associated diffuse artifact material were incorporated into a single historical archaeological cultural resource labeled Oak Road 1 for this Project. Envicom evaluated the Oak Road 1 archaeological site and recommended that it was not eligible to the CRHR under any criteria . The 2025 field survey of APN 6370-140-155 was negative for cultural resources.
Due to the lack of prehistoric evidence on the properties, and the lack of Oak Road 1 site integrity and CRHR eligibility, Envicom recommended spot -check archaeological monitoring only for the project through construction -phase grading and excavation activity . Envicom also recommended contingenc y language to cover the unexpected discovery of older historical or prehistoric cultural resources during construction.
The NHMLAC record search determined that no fossil resources were found on the Project properties, nor in the immediate surrounding area . Dibblee geological maps indicated that the entire Project was located within recent alluvial material, which was not sensitive for fossil resources . Envicom did not recommend monitoring for paleontological resources but did recommend contingency language to cover the unexpected discovery of fossil resources during construction.
531
10.0 REFERENCES
THE PHASE II EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF
THE PRINTZ COLONY HOUSE AT THE STRATHEARN HISTORICAL PARK AND MUSEUM,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFONRIA
44 10.0 REFERENCES
Arnold, Jeanne E., Elizabeth L. Ambos, and Daniel Larson 1997a Geophysical Surveys of Stratigraphically Complex Island California Sites: New Implications for Household Archaeology. Antiquity 71:157-168.
Arnold, Jeanne and Anthony Graesch
2004 The Later Evolution of the Island Chumash . From Foundations of Chumash Complexity:
Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 4:53 -64 (Jeanne E. Arnold, editor), Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith
1978 Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 9, pp. 538–562. Robert F. Heizer, editor.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Beck, W. A., and Y. D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman Publishing, Division of the University.
Bissell, Ron, Joan Brown, and Marco Bonifacic
1999 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the UNOCAL Property, 2,800 acres in Simi Valley and Moorpark, Ventura County, California. RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, California.
Blackburn, Thomas
1963 A Manuscript Account of the Venture ño Chumash. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 5:139- 158. University of California, Los Angeles.
Bocek, Barbara
1988 Sites and Site Clusters: Middle Period Archaeology of the San Francisquito Drainage. Proceedings of the Society for California Archeology 1:299-309.
Cameron, Janet.
1963 Simi Grows Up. Los Angeles, California.
Castillo, E. D.
1978 The Impact of Euro- American Exploration and Settlement. In Handbook of North American Indians, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 99. Vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Chartkoff, Joseph L. and Kerry Kona Chartkoff
1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Ciolek-Torrello, Richard, Donn R. Renda, Angela Keller, and Anne Q. Stoll (editors) 2004 A Passage in Time: The Archaeology and History of the Santa Susana State Historic Park, California. Statistical Research Inc., Tucson, Arizona.
Cleland, Robert Glass.
1951 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California, 1850-1880. San Marino, California. 532
10.0 REFERENCES
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
45 Coupland, Gary
2004 Complex Hunter -Gatherers of the Southern California Coast. From Foundations of Chumash Complexity: Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 10:173 -180 (Jeanne E. Arnold, editor), Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Corbett, Ray
2004 Chumash Bone Whistles: The Development of Ceremonial Integration in Chumash Society. From Foundations of Chumash Complexity: Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 7:65-74 (Jeanne E. Arnold, editor), Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Costo, R. and J. H. Costo
1987 The Missions of California: A Legacy of Genocide. Indian Historian Press, San Francisco, California.
Deagan, Kathleen
1996 Colonial Transformations: Euro -American Cultural genesis in the Early Spanish American Colonies. Journal of Anthropological Research 52(2): 135-160.
Dibblee, Thomas
1992 Geologic Map of the Santa Susana Quadrangle, Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, California .
Based on the Santa Susana/Simi Valley East USGS Quadrangle Map.
Dillon, Brian
1994a Archaeological Survey and Impact Assessment of Tentative Tract No. 51789, A 80 Acre Parcel in Haskell Canyon, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California . Land Design Consultants, Inc.
Pasadena, California.
Dillon, Brian
1994b Archaeological Site Record for CA-LAN-2245. On file, California State University South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.
Erlandson, Jon M.
1998 The Evolution of the “Barbareno” Chumash. Proceedings of the Society for California Archeology 12: 106-113.
Erlandson, Jon and Kevin Bartoy
1995 Cabrillo, the Chumash, and Old World Diseases. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 17(2):153 173.
Gamble, Lynn
2008 Chumash World at European Contact: Power, Trade and Feasting Among Complex Hunter - Gatherers. University of California Press.
Gamble, Lynn H., and Glenn S. Russell
2002 A View from the Mainland: Late Holocene Cultural Developments Among the Ventureño Chumash and the Tongva. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 101 -126. University of California Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology, Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Los Angeles. 533
10.0 REFERENCES
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
46 Gibson, Robert O.
1991 The Chumash. Indians of North America series, edited by Frank W. Porter III . Chelsea House Publishers, New York.
Glasow, Michael A.
1996 Purisimeno Chumash Prehistory: Maritime Adaptations Along the Southern California Coast .
Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth, Texas.
Glassow, M., L. Gamble, J. Perry, and G. Russell
2007 Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Tranverse Ranges . In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity , T. Jones and K. Klar (editors), pp. 191 -213.
Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Grant, C.
1978a Chumash: Introduction. In Handbook of North American Indians , Volume 8. California, volume edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 505 -509 (William C. Sturtevant, general editor) . Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1978b Eastern Coastal Chumash. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. California, volume edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 508 -519 (William C. Sturtevant, general editor) . Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Haury, Emil
1986 Prehistory of the American Southwest (J. Jefferson Reid and David E. Doyel, editors) . University of Arizona Press.
Havens, Patricia, and Bill Appleton
1997 Simi Valley: A Journey Through Time. Simi Valley Historical Society and Museum, Simi Valley, California.
Heizer, R. F. and Elasser, A. B.
1980 The Natural World of the California Indians. U.C. Press, Berkeley, California.
Hodgson, Susan F.
2004 California Indians, Artisans of Oil. California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Sacramento, California.
Horne, Stephen Philip
1981 The Inland Chumash: Ethnography, Ethnohistory, and Archaeology. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Hudson, Travis and Thomas C. Blackburn
1982 The Material Culture of the Chumash Interaction Sphere, Volume 1: Food Procurement and Transportation. Ballena Press/ Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Publication, Santa Barbara, California.
1983 The Material Culture of the Chumash Interaction Sphere, Volume 2: Food Preparation and Shelter.
Ballena Press/ Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Publication, Santa Barbara, California. 534
10.0 REFERENCES
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
47 1985 The Material Culture of the Chumash Interaction Sphere, Volume 3: Clothing, Ornamentation, and Grooming. Ballena Press/ Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Publication, Santa Barbara, California.
1986 The Material Culture of the Chumash Interaction Sphere, Volume 4: Ceremonial Paraphernalia, Games, and Amusements. Ballena Press/ Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Publication, Santa Barbara, California.
1987 The Material Culture of the Chumash Interaction Sphere, Volume 5: Manufacturing Processes, Metrology, and Trade. Ballena Press/ Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Publication, Santa Barbara, California.
Johnson, John R.
1997 Chumash Indians in Simi Valley . In Simi Valley: A Journey Through Time , pp. 5- 21. Patricia Havens and Bill Appleton, editors . Simi Valley Historical Society and Museum: Simi Valley, California.
Jones, Terry L. and Kathryn A. Klar (editors)
2007 California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity . Alta Mira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Justice, Noel
2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin . Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
Kennett, Douglas J. and Christina A. Conlee
2002 Emergence of Late Holocene Sociopolitical Complexity on Santa Rosa and San Miguel Islands .
From Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 6, Joh M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, editors. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
King, Chester
1990 Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used for Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region before A.D. 1804. The Evolution of North American Indians Series, D. H. Thomas, ed. New York: Garland Publishing Company.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California . Bulletin 78 of the Bureau of American Ethnology .
Smithsonian Institution: Washington, D.C. (Reprinted 1978 by Dover Publication, Inc., New York).
Landberg, Leif C. W.
1965 The Chumash Indians of Southern California: Southwest Museum Papers Number 19. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles, California.
Lightfoot, Kent G.
1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity 60(2):199-217.
535
10.0 REFERENCES
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
48 Lightfoot, Kent G. and Otis Parrish
2009 California Indians and Their Environment: An Introduction . University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
McCall, Lynne and Rosalind Perry (Project Coordinators) 1990 California’s Chumash Indians . Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Education Center Publication, Santa Barbara, California. (revised, 2002).
McKenna, Jeanette A.
2000a Archaeological test excavations at CA -LAN-2245 and CA- LAN-2246, located in the Haskell Canyon Area of Los Angeles, California. McKenna et al., Whittier, California.
2000b Archaeological Site Record Update for CA -LAN-2245. On file, California State University South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.
McLaughlin, David J.
2011 Soldiers Scoundrels, Poets & Priests: Stories of the Men and Women behind the Missions of California. Pentacle Press, Phoenix, Arizona.
Meighan, C.
1992 Topanga’s First Inhabitants. In The Topanga Story, edited by Louise A. York.
Topanga Historical Society, Topanga, California.
Miller, Bruce
1991 The Gabrielino. Sand River Press, Los Osos, California.
Miller, Crane Slater
1968 The Changing Landscape of the Simi Valley, California from 1795 to 1968 . Master’s thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
Mithun, Marianne
1999 Languages of Native North America. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Moratto, M.J.
1984 California Archaeology, Academic Press Inc., Orlando, Florida.
2004 California Archaeology, Coyote Press, Salinas, California.
National Park Service
2015 S ecretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation . Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior. Internet publication.
Olson, Ronald L.
1930 Chumash Prehistory . University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 28(1):1-21.
536
10.0 REFERENCES
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
49 Pitt, Leonard
1966 The Decline of the Californios: A Social History of the Spanish-Speaking Californians, 1846-1890.
Berkeley, California.
Priestley, Herbert, ed.
1937 A Historical, Political, and Natural Description of California by Pedro Fages, Soldier of Spain .
University of California Press, Berkley, California.
Schoenherr, Allan, A.
1992 A Natural History of California . California Natural History Guides: 56. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Schiffman, Paula
2009 Ecology of Native Animals in California Grasslands . California Grasslands: Ecology and Management, Mark R. Stromberg, Jeffrey D. Corbin, and Carla Marie D’Antonio editors.
University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles, California.
Sheridan, Edwin M.
1940 History of Ventura County. Los Angeles, California.
No Author
2021 Simi Valley General Plan. Simi Valley, California.
Squires, Richard L.
1997 Geologic Profile of Simi Valley. Contributions in Science: 511: 30 November 2006. Publication of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.
State of California
2017 Technical Advisory: AB 52 and Tribal Cultural Resources in CEQA: June 2017. State of California Publication, Sacramento, California.
2005 California State Law and Historic Preservation: Statutes, Regulations and Administrative Policies Regarding the Preservation and Protection of Cultural and Historical Resources. State of California Publication, Sacramento, California.
2001 California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historical Resources . State of California Publication, Sacramento, California.
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources . State of California Publication, Sacramento, California.
1993 Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections . State of California Publication, Sacramento, California.
1991 Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs. State of California Publication, Sacramento, California.
537
10.0 REFERENCES
THE PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR THE OAK ROAD SOUTH PROJECT,
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
50 1990 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format .
State of California Publication, Sacramento, California.
Sunil, Shilpa, and Ryan Terwilliger
2022 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 1761, 1801, and 1807 Oak Road, Simi Valley, California, 93063. Hilman Consulting, Orange, California.
Sutton, Mark Q.
2009 People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern California. The Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly Volume 41 (2 and 3):31-94. 2010 The Del Rey Tradition and its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. The Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly Volume 44 (2):1-54.
Sutton, Mark Q. and Jill Gardner
2010 Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California. The Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly Volume 42 (4):1-64.
Thompson, Thomas H. and Albert Augustus West
1961 History of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, California. Howell North Books, San Francisco, California.
United States Geological Society
1987 Recent Reverse Faulting in the Transverse Ranges, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1339. U.S. Department of the Interior.
Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Ar chaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214–230.
1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 25–36. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Warren, Claude N.
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States: Symposium of the Society for American Archaeology, Santa Fe, 1968.
Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1–14.
Welch, Rosanne
2006 A Brief History of the Tongva Tribe: The Native Inhabitants of the Lands of the Puente Hills Preserve. Claremont University, California.
Wilmarth, M. Grace
1931 Names and Definitions of the Geologic Units of California . United States Department of the Interior, Bulletin 826.
538
APPENDIX A
List of Previously Completed Cultural Resource Reports in the Project Site and Surrounding Study Area
539
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs VN-00001 Environmental Impact Report Impact
Assessment of Archaeological Resources of
the Development on Site Pd-s-159
Ralph Stone and Co.Stone, Ralph
VN-00280 1980 Response Letter of April 21, 1980 Map of
Simi Valley Showing the Areas Which Have
Been Surveyed
City of Simi ValleyKuhn, Michael W. 56-000511, 56-000550, 56-000562, 56-000655, 56-000675, 56-000678
VN-00572 1988 Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey Fiber
Optic Cable Project, Burbank to Santa
Barbara, California for Us Sprint
Communications Company
Dames & MooreDames and Moore 56-000027, 56-000196, 56-000202, 56-000240, 56-000241, 56-000341,
56-000342, 56-000550, 56-000643,
56-000644, 56-000655, 56-000729,
56-000789, 56-000895, 56-000896,
56-000916, 56-000917, 56-000918
VN-00706 1989 Archaeological Reconnaissance Report: Pd-s- 778/tt4540
City of Simi ValleyKuhn, Michael W.
VN-00920 1990 An Archaeological Resource Survey and
Impact Assessment of the Phase 1 Knolls
Ranch/sinay Tract Project, Simi Valley,
Ventura County, California
W & S ConsultantsSimon, Joseph M.
VN-01102 1977 Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey and
Potential Impact Assessment for Thirteen
Areas in Southern Ventura County, California
ARISinger, Clay A. 56-000003, 56-000004, 56-000005,
56-000013, 56-000014, 56-000031,
56-000032, 56-000033, 56-000075,
56-000076, 56-000077, 56-000087,
56-000135, 56-000136, 56-000137,
56-000138, 56-000140, 56-000142,
56-000148, 56-000149, 56-000150,
56-000158, 56-000163, 56-000164,
56-000165, 56-000458, 56-000478,
56-000479, 56-000481, 56-000490
VN-01265 1992 Consolidated Report: Cultural Resources
Studies for the Proposed Pacific Pipeline
Project
Peak and AssociatesReed, L.W. 19-000007, 19-000021, 19-000034, 19-000089, 19-000251, 19-000357,
19-000385, 19-000389, 19-000390,
19-000407, 19-000409, 19-000668,
19-000781, 19-000830, 19-000887,
19-000901, 19-000963, 19-001097,
19-001112, 19-001124, 19-001575,
19-001620
VN-01271 1993 Phase I Archaeological Survey Santa Clara River Alternative Broadway Feeder Option
and San Fernando Valley Conveyance
Project Simi Valley Feeder Options A, B, C,
Suboption, and Perliter Tunnel Los Angeles
and Ventura Counties, California
MacFarlane Archaeological
Consultants
MacFarlane, Heather 56-000346, 56-000550, 56-000655,
56-000677, 56-000727, 56-000729,
56-000896, 56-001121, 56-001122,
56-001123, 56-001124, 56-001125,
56-001126, 56-001127, 56-001128,
56-100001
540
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs VN-02504 2006 Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network
Construction Project State of California:
Volumes I and Ii
SWCA Environmental
Consultants, Inc.
Arrington, Cindy and
Nancy Sikes
VN-02872 2009 TEA-21 Rural Roadside Inventory: Native
American Consultants and Ethnographic
Study for Caltrans District 7, Ventura County
ICF Jones & StokesFortier, Jana
VN-02964 2011 Final Program Environmental Report for the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Simi
Valley Commercial Community Development
Project Adoption and Merger
Urban Futures Inc.Unknown
VN-03094 2002 Historic Resource Evaluation Report- Mason Avenue At-Grade Crossing and Safety
Improvements Project, Los Angeles City,
California
Greenwood and AssociatesFoster, John A.
VN-03209 2015 Cultural Resources Technical Report:
Metrolink FY2013-14 Rehabilitation Project
CONTRACT NO. E737C-08 CTO NO. 061
HDRDiss, Margaret, Ann M.
Keen, and Amy Gusick
56-153135, 56-153136
541
APPENDIX B
SCCIC, NAHC, and the NHMLAC Request Letters,
and the NAHC, and the NAHC and NHMLAC Response Letters
542
California Historical Resources Information System
CHRIS Data Request Form
1 of 3
2-29-2020 Version
___________________________________________________________________ ACCESS AND USE AGREEMENT NO.: IC FILE NO.:
To: South Central Coastal
Print Name: Dr. Wayne Bischoff
Affiliation: Envicom Corporation
Address: 4164 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.
City: Westlake Village
State: CA
Information Center
Date: 04/09/2024
Zip: 91362
Phone: (818) 879-4700 Fax: Email: [email protected] Billing Address (if different than above):
Billing Email: [email protected] Billing Phone: (818) 879-4700 Project Name / Reference: Oak Road South Project, Simi Valley, Ventura Co.
Project Street Address: _Oak Road South (several parcels) County or Counties: Ventura
Township/Range/UTMs: T = N2 R = W1, Lat = 34°16'8.34"N, Long = _118°40'36.06"W USGS 7.5’ Quad(s): Simi Valley East
PRIORITY RESPONSE (Additional Fee): yes / no
TOTAL FEE NOT TO EXCEED: $
(If blank, the Information Center will contact you if the fee is expected to exceed $1,000.00) Special Instructions:
Information Center Use Only
Date of CHRIS Data Provided for this Request:
Confidential Data Included in Response: yes / no
Notes:
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
OA K ROAD SO U T H OW N ERS LLC
5 3 0 T E C H N O L O G Y D R I V E S U I T E 1 0 0 I R V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 8 May 28, 2026
City of Simi Valley
Department of Environmental Services
Attention: Naren Gunasekera, Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator 2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
RE: Oak Road South at 1761, 1801, & 1807 Oak Road (“Property”) As you know, Oak Road Owners South, LLC managed by Sentry Property Group, Inc. (“Applicant”) presented The Oak Road South project (“Project”) to the Simi Valley Neighborhood Council #2 (“NC #2”) on April 14, 2026 and to the Simi Valley Planning Commission (“Commission”) on May 13, 2026. NC #2 recommended to approve the Project 7-6 and the Commission recommended to approve the Project 3-1 with a condition. This letter is intended to respond to neighborhood feedback, highlight community benefits and offer meaningful modifications to the Project in an effort to help the City Council make an informed decision.
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL # 2
The feedback from NC #2 focused primarily on the design of the one-car garage and the waiver requesting a reduction from 12-feet to 10 feet clear. Upon further examination and in working with our architect, we discovered that the garages could in fact have the 12-foot clearance required if the additional storage area was removed. We also asked our architect to explore other ways to make the garage more functional, especially for a full-size SUV or pick-up truck. In addition to adding 12’ by 20’ of interior clearance for driver and passengers, we instructed our architect to increase the width of the garage door to 9’ by 8’ to accommodate larger SUV’s and trucks. The combination increased the functionality of the garage and we are happy to incorporate this solution in response to the NC #2 feedback.
PRE-PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH
Prior to the hearing, staff received several letters. Upon getting the correspondence from staff, the Applicant reached out to Mr. Gary Bright to answer and address questions he had about the Project. Initially, he was concerned that the Project would limit ingress and egress to his home at 1607 Oak Road located south of the channel. We reassured Mr. Bright that access would be preserved and enhanced with a 30-foot wide road that would extend from the channel to Los Angeles Ave. While the requested gate was not a viable option due to the shared service and emergency access needs, we agreed to add a special condition for directional signage that will be posted at the existing crossing. This provided Mr. Bright comfort that the U-turn traffic would be minimized on this dead-end road. We were happy to accommodate the request and appreciated the input from a supportive neighbor.
Attachment H
600
OA K ROAD SO U T H OW N ERS LLC
5 3 0 T E C H N O L O G Y D R I V E S U I T E 1 0 0 I R V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 8
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROV AL WITH A CONDITION
The Commission reviewed the Project and generally supported the for-sale detached product and three very-low-income units that promote homeownership. Commissioner Lee Kennedy stated “To put it in a nutshell this is really good project” but he and other commissioners would prefer to preserve certain trees that are scheduled for removal but the benefits off affordable homes and attainable housing outweighs a few trees. Commissioner John Tolson stated “Great project except for trees”. Commissioner Ken Rice was especially concerned about the T-1 oak tree located at the northern property line.
CONFERRING WITH CITY STAFF AND TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
While we are certainly sympathetic, unfortunately, the tree is located in an urban environment and sandwiched between two new housing developments as contemplated by the City’s long- term planning documents. In fact, when we started planning the project, we worked diligently to preserve trees but numerous site development constraints like required fire access and circulation, changes to the fire hazard severity map that upzoned the fire zone, grading, deep over-excavation and soil compaction forced us to redesign the project to prioritize safety. As a result of the new plan, the Project gained three affordable units.
Both, our project and the City Ventures project to the north, were studied by Richard Campbell, ASLA, the consulting arborist (“Arborist”). In fact, the City Ventures Project was granted approval to remove 55 non-native trees on their property and will also need to prune about 20 feet of the T-1 tree canopy to build their 70 three-story townhomes situated just 10 feet from our project property line. That work has already begun. The Arborist determined that the recent earthwork related to the City Ventures Project may have wounded the tree roots significantly. It will take time for the full extent of the damage to be evident, but the damage is real, the tree is more susceptible to pests and disease and its grade has already suffered a downgrade since June 2022.
The Arborist was engaged to provide expert advice on tree condition and valuation. The city also engaged Jordan & Bain Landscape Architects, a third-party arborist to peer review the Arborist’s findings who concurred with the Arborist’s report. The T-1 tree is rated C minus (where C is “average condition” and “minus” is a sub-rating assigned when the clear letter designation is not appropriate) classifying T-1 a tree in “below average” condition in health and aesthetics.
According to the Tree Report, the “C minus” classification’s numerical equivalent is 20% and the Basic Reproduction Cost is $87,674. If T-1 was a healthy tree with an A+ grade, the value would be $438,370 but those trees are very rare. The Evaluation Form in the Tree Report cites several features that contribute to its “below average” condition including:
• bees - The tree has internal decay or hollow spaces because heartwood decays naturally with age. Cavities can indicate compromised structural integrity. • broken branch scars - Wounds left where branches failed, snapped, or were improperly removed, typically as a result of storm damage, limb failure or poor pruning. These are entry points for fungi, decay organisms and insects.
601
OA K ROAD SO U T H OW N ERS LLC
5 3 0 T E C H N O L O G Y D R I V E S U I T E 1 0 0 I R V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 8 • co-dominant scaffolds and trunks - The tree has many major stems of similar size competing as primary trunks. This indicated weak structural architecture. Co-dominant trunks are one of the most common causes of catastrophic oak failure. As stems enlarge, pressure increases at the union. Splitting occur suddenly during wind or heavy limb loading.
• crossing branches - Branches are rubbing or growing across one another which indicates crowded canopy structure and poor branch spacing. Bark abrasion creates wounds that invite decay and pathogens and the rubbing branches weaken over time. • major deadwood dehiscing - Dead branches that are splitting, shedding or separating.
Large dead branches are beginning to crack or detach indicating advanced decline in portions of the canopy. This often signals stress, root problems, drought impact or age- related decline. This is a serious failure hazard because falling limbs from oaks can be extremely heavy and dangerous.
• epicormic growth - Small shoots sprouting directly from the trunk or major limbs that indicate stress response caused by root damage, drought declining canopy, internal decay and aging stress.
• intertwined in bottletree - The tree is intertwined with a decorative folk art display where glass bottles are placed upside down on the branches of a dead tree. • thinning canopy - The crown has fewer leaves than expected typically from drought, root damage, soil compaction, disease, age-related decline, root fungus or vascular issues.
One of the clearest indicators of declining vitality due to reduced photosynthesis. • water trap - Water collects in cavities, branch union or decay pockets causing poor drainage in structural cavities. Associated with decay pockets or included bark unions.
Constant moisture accelerates fungal decay, weakens scaffold unions and trunk interiors and increases likelihood of hollowing and structural compromise.
The Arborist returned to the site to reevaluate the condition of the T-1 tree now that the City Ventures Project has commenced grading and construction causing disruptions to the trees critical root system. The Arborist will provide feedback detailing his findings.
The condition of T-41 is similar to T-1 with broken branch scars, co-dominant scaffolds, co- dominant trunks, crossing branches and deadwood plus (a) exudation stains indicating internal stress, a physical wound, or pest activity, (b) deep ground squirrel infestation with burrows located directly beneath root systems that destabilize and often kill trees.
Please note that the other oak trees studied by the Arborist were graded C+ (40% Basic Reproduction Cost) to D (5% Basic Reproduction Cost). Also, the Arborist’s addendum dated April 24, 2026 clarified that these trees are not in any protected tree database for historic trees at the City or County of Ventura.
According to the HOA’s insurance carrier, large overhanging trees are a significant concern for property insurers and are closely scrutinized during the underwriting process. From a liability 602
OA K ROAD SO U T H OW N ERS LLC
5 3 0 T E C H N O L O G Y D R I V E S U I T E 1 0 0 I R V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 8 standpoint, limbs or entire trees can break and cause damage to structures, vehicles, or individuals. Overhanging vegetation also increases fire risk, particularly in wildfire-prone areas because they are a direct pathway for fire spread. Carriers take a strict position on properties with overhanging trees and this condition can result in coverage restrictions, non-renewal, or a refusal to quote altogether. Higher risk leads to higher premiums and higher HOA dues that would be expensive for everyone especially burdensome for the very-low-income owners.
Protecting trees in place is not a viable option. According to the civil engineer and arborist, grading and over-excavation would undermine the tree’s already fragile “below average” condition, so removal is necessary to develop the project. Relocation is also not a viable option.
Valley Oaks are one of the hardest trees to relocate and the roots are likely to extend 80 to 150 feet. Relocation of the tree is logistically and cost prohibitive. The tree’s survival rate is very low (less than 25%). Even if the 30-foot private road was wide enough and the utility lines weren’t in the way, the relocation attempt would likely set a Guiness Book world record. Due to the removal of these trees our project will pay $533,000 into the city’s tree fund that will go towards new trees throughout the city for the entire community to enjoy.
However, while it is a very expensive endeavor, we would consider relocating two younger oak trees (T-42 and T-47). These are more resilient when relocated and have a much longer life ahead. These could be a focal point in the new parks.
LONG-TERM COMMUNITY BENEFITS TO CONSIDER
The Project is intended to provide much-needed housing at multiple income levels while delivering long-term community benefits through homeownership opportunities, local job creation, privately-funded infrastructure improvements that solve existing infrastructure issues like drainage, expanded tax revenues, support for local businesses, and new neighborhood amenities at no cost to the city. In fact, the project will generate over $150,000 in annual reoccurring revenue for the City.
1. RESOLVES A MAJOR DRAINAGE ISSUE FOR THE COMMUNITY
The Project completes a coordinated residential transition along Oak Road. When the City Council unanimously approved the 70-unit three-story townhome project to the north (“City Ventures Project”), it was understood that our project would be designed to resolve several development challenges, especially drainage. The City Ventures Project incorporated an emergency mechanical pump system to transfer stormwater from the southwest corner where it drains naturally to the southeast corner where it would sheet flow down Oak Road. Because that portion of Oak Road is not fully improved, this is not considered best practice and staff voiced their reservations. However, City Council took comfort in knowing that our proposed project would be developed and eliminate the need for the pump system and the costly maintenance that comes with pump degradation and failures. One of the most critical community benefits our project is that our storm drain system was upsized to accommodate the storm water coming from the City Ventures 603
OA K ROAD SO U T H OW N ERS LLC
5 3 0 T E C H N O L O G Y D R I V E S U I T E 1 0 0 I R V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 8 Project and safely transport it to the channel as required. This would not have been possible without close coordination with our neighbors and our shared civil engineer.
2. NEW HOUSING IS AN ECONOMIC ENGINE
Every new household buys groceries, uses restaurants, hires landscapers, shops locally, and uses services. More rooftops can strengthen neighborhood retail viability and attract additional businesses. New homes generate economic benefits including new temporary construction jobs, permanent jobs, tax revenue from property taxes, sales tax revenue from residents, etc.
Before construction begins, the City will collect permit fees, impact fees, property taxes and sales tax. The City earns $1,450,000 in building permit and development impact fees from the Project alone. Those funds will contribute to improvements that existing residents also use—street widening, traffic signals, sidewalks, sewer upgrades, water facilities, trails, parks, landscaping, drainage systems, utilities, public safety and other community facilities.
Total expenses to create this community could likely exceed $30M with the bulk going to labor for jobs like plumbers, electricians, framers, roofers, sales and marketing, etc.
Based on the May 27, 2026 report prepared by Zimmerman Group, the Project will generate $150,137 in annual reoccurring revenue with the 90% generated by property taxes, VLF-Property Tax in Lieu allocation and Offsite Retail Sales and Use Tax. All of which are a direct result of this new community being built.
3. PROVIDES AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Project includes three (3) Very Low Income Restricted homes that promote homeownership at a price of $130,000 (or $180/SF). After discussing with city staff there have not been Very Low Income new homes sold in the city in the last 20 years and potentially ever. A market survey revealed that a similar market-rate unit is very rare and very expensive. No detached homes, townhomes or condominiums have sold for $130,000 or less in the last five years. Only five (5) townhomes/condominiums under 1,000 SF have sold in the last two years. Prices range from $389,900 to $630,000 (or $468 to $630/SF). This is 3.0 to 4.85 times the cost of our affordable homes.
LOCATION PRICE SIZE $/SF
915 Vallejo Ave $630,000 1,000 SF $630/SF
2026 Calle La Sombra #2 $389,900 834 SF $468/SF
2076 N. Avenida Vista Delmonte $400,000 834 SF $480/SF
2033 Calle La Sombra #2 $410,000 834 SF $492/SF
3469 Lockwood Ct #55 $425,000 912 SF $466/SF
604
OA K ROAD SO U T H OW N ERS LLC
5 3 0 T E C H N O L O G Y D R I V E S U I T E 1 0 0 I R V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 8
4. PROVIDES ATTANABLE HOUSING
The Project includes fifty-seven (57) detached homes designed to promote homeownership at an attainable price. Based on recent market research conducted by Zonda, an expert residential market analytics advisory firm, Southern California and Simi Valley lack a detached product that fits between a traditional attached townhome and a detached home on a 4,500 SF lot. With this new development, Simi Valley will be in an enviable position offering new and existing residents an attainable detached home they can’t get elsewhere.
These homes will likely qualify for FHA financing and low down payments. Based on current market pricing, the City will also be able to count these market rate homes towards the City’s moderate-income housing goals. This additional housing can help teachers, healthcare workers, police, firefighters and younger families stay within the community rather than commuting from farther away. New homes also reduce pressure on existing housing stock through a chain effect where households move into newer units and free up older units for others.
5. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS PRIV ATELY INSTALLED & MAINTAINED The Project is required to install all improvements including the privately-owned and maintained roadways. The Project will not burden the City with new infrastructure costs and the HOA will be established to maintain all improvements in perpetuity.
Oak Road is currently a substandard roadway. The neighborhood will benefit from a new 30-foot road that improves vehicular and pedestrian safety and circulation for residents and the Ventura County Fire Department.
The existing overhead utilities notorious for the wildfire risks will be undergrounded.
This eliminates risk of utility-caused wildfires in a high fire zone and makes this neighborhood a safer environment for all residents.
6. ONSITE COMMUNITY BENEFITS
The neighborhood gets new park space and amenities that did not previously exist. This includes enhanced new landscaping including 161 new trees including a Coastal Live Oak tree.
The City Ventures project will benefit from a new safe functional storm drain system instead of the current problematic pump and bubbler system.
The community will benefit from 3 Very Low Income for sale units not currently offered by any new development and not offered in Simi Valley in the last 20 years and potentially ever.
605
OA K ROAD SO U T H OW N ERS LLC
5 3 0 T E C H N O L O G Y D R I V E S U I T E 1 0 0 I R V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 8 The community benefits from an easement our project has agreed to provide the city for hiking and biking trails along the channel that promotes city-wide connectivity in accordance with the Arroyo Simi Specific Plan.
The community will benefit from the $533,000 dollars our project is required to put back into landscaping on site or pay into the city’s tree fund that will provide new trees for the entire city of Simi Valley to enjoy.
The new homeowners and the existing neighbors to the south will benefit from a new 30’ wide paved road replacing the existing dirt road that is in poor condition.
Sincerely,
Curt Crandall
Manager
606
28202 CABOT ROAD | SUITE 620 | LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677
PHONE: (949) 542-7070 | FAX: (949) 542-7076
www.zimmermangroup.com
M E M O R A N D
U M
TO: Oak Roa
d South Owners, LLC
ATTN: Curt Crandall
DATE: May 27, 2026
FROM: Jim Zimmerman
Zimmerman Group
SUBJECT: Estimated City Revenues – Oak Road South Project This memorandum presents an estimate of the recurring annual revenues that the proposed Oak Road South project (the "Project") would generate for the City of Simi Valley (“City”) at buildout. The Project consists of 60 residential dwelling units as illustrated in the preliminary site plan shown below.
The Proje
ct is located within the existing City, so the City's General Fund receives its full property tax allocation (including Tax Equity Allocation, or TEA, adjustments) consistent with the applicable Tax Rate Area. All revenue projections in this memorandum are expressed in 2026 dollars and reflect conditions at full Project buildout.
Summary of Findings
Based on the factors and assumptions described below and detailed on the attached tables, the Project is estimated to generate approximately $150,000 per year in recurring revenue to the City's General Fund and related accounts at buildout. The projected recurring revenues by category are summarized as follows:
607
Category Buildout % of Total
General Fund and Relevant Other Accounts,
Annual Recurring Revenues
Property Taxes $70,836 47.18%
VLF-Property Tax in Lieu $34,515 22.99%
Documentary Transfer Tax $2,075 1.38%
Offsite Retail Sales and Use Tax $30,232 20.14%
Franchise Fees $6,246 4.16%
Fines and Forfeitures $408 0.27%
Miscellaneous Charges for Services $16 0.01%
Revenues from Other Governments $696 0.46%
Interest on Investments $2 0.00%
Gas Tax $5,111 3.40%
Transient Lodging Taxes $0 0.00%
Total Recurring Revenues $150,137 100.00%
Property
tax related revenue (including the VLF-Property Tax in Lieu allocation) represents the largest single source of new recurring revenue, accounting for approximately 70% of the projected total. The following are the key factors driving this significant result:
• City Allocation of General 1% Property Tax – Because the Project lies within existing City boundaries, the City's General Fund receives a substantially higher share of the 1% basic property tax levy than would apply in an annexation area. For the Project Tax Rate Area (TRA 09035), the City receives a combined share of approximately 13.45% of the total 1% property tax rate (inclusive of TEA adjustments and the City's Sanitation and Special Zone allocations). • Assessed Value & Property -Related Taxes – The Project consists entirely of new residential construction. The average projected assessed valuation is $877,800 per home , yielding total new assessed valuation of approximately $52.7 million at buildout.
Calculation Data & Assumptions
The revenue projections rely on the key assumptions and data from various sources, including City budget information, County of Ventura Assessor and tax allocation data, and demographic data and assumptions, which are detailed on the attached tables. These assumptions are generally consistent with the recent fiscal impact calculations reviewed by the City related to another development project associated with a proposed annexation to the City.
Additional Economic Benefits.
The estimates in this memorandum reflect only the projected annually recurring revenues attributable to the Project. Additional fiscal and economic benefits, such as impact fees, job creation, & one-time tax revenues, would also be generated by development of the Project.
608
Attached Tables.
The calculations and underlying assumptions are provided on the attached tables:
Table 1 – Summary of recurring revenues at buildout
Table 2 – Project population
Table 3 – Projected assessed valuation and property tax revenue Table 4 – Existing citywide population and service-population assumptions Table 5 – Derivation of City revenue factors
Table 6 – Calculation of off-site sales and use tax
Table 7 – Property tax allocations for the Project Tax Rate Area (TRA 09035) 609
Table 1
Summary of Recurring Revenues at Buildout
Oak Road South Project
Category Buildout % of Total
General Fund and Relevant Other
Accounts, Annual Recurring Revenues
Property Taxes $70,836 47.18%
VLF-Property Tax in Lieu $34,515 22.99%
Documentary Transfer Tax $2,075 1.38%
Offsite Retail Sales and Use Tax $30,232 20.14%
Franchise Fees $6,246 4.16%
Fines and Forfeitures $408 0.27%
Miscellaneous Charges for Services $16 0.01%
Revenues from Other Governments $696 0.46%
Interest on Investments $2 0.00%
Gas Tax $5,111 3.40%
Transient Lodging Taxes $0 0.00%
Total Recurring Revenues $150,137 100.00%
610
Table 2
Project Population
Oak Road South Project
Buildout
Residential Dwelling Units
Homes 60
Average persons per Home (1) 3.03
New Population from Development 182
Notes:
(1) Based on estimate per prior City reviewed analysis. 611
Table 3
A
ssessed Valuation and Property Tax
Oak Road South Project
Per Unit Buildout
Residential Dwelling Units
Homes 60
Assessed Valuation
Average Home Price (1) $877,800 $52,668,000
Assessed Value of New Development $52,668,000
Projected Property Tax
City Share of 1% Levy (TRA 09035, per
County allocation) 13.4496%
Total General Fund Property Tax $70,836
Projected VLF-Property Tax In Lieu
Cumulative New Valuation (for VLF
calculation) $52,668,000
Total Annual VLF-Property Tax In Lieu (2) $34,515
Projected Documentary Transfer Tax
Cumulative New Valuation $52,668,000
Annual Property Turnover (7.1627%) $3,772,451
Total County Annual Transfer Tax (0.055%) $2,075
Notes:
(1) Provided by developer.
(2) Calculated at $655.33 per $1,000,000 of Assessed Valuation (see Table 5). 612
Table 4
Existing Citywide Population Assumptions
City of Simi Valley
Variable Description Applied Values
Population and Housing
Total population (1) 123,842
Employment
Total Employment in the City (2) 49,200
Estimated Service Population
Total Population 123,842
Estimated Effective Employment (at 50% of workers) 24,600 Estimated Daily Total Service Population 148,442
Notes:
(1) Based on E-5 Cit y/County Population Estimate, 1/1/2026 from CA Dept. of Finance. (2) Based on estimate per prior City reviewed analysis. 613
Table 5
Derivation of City Revenue Factors
City of Simi Valley
Revenue Source Simi Valley
Budget Projection Basis (1) Annual Projection Factor
Property Taxes (2, 4) $42,137,819 Average over all
TRAs
13.4496% of City share of
1% levy
VLF – Property Tax In Lieu
(3) $16,385,672 Case Study $655.33 per $1,000,000
assessed valuation
Documentary Transfer Tax
(4) $551,000
Property Turnover
and Valuation
Assumptions
7.1627% × $0.55 per
$1,000 assessed valuation
Sales and Use Taxes (4) $23,281,906 Taxable Sales Off-site sales only (see Table 6)
Use Tax $3,336,245 Use Tax as Percent of
Sales Tax 14.3% of sales tax
Franchise Fees (4) $5,100,000 Service Population =
148,442
$34.36 per capita, service
population
Miscellaneous Charges for
Services $11,100 Population = 123,842 $0.09 per capita
Fines and Forfeitures (4) $333,300 Service Population = 148,442
$2.25 per capita, service
population
Revenues from Other
Governments (4) $473,916 Population = 123,842 $3.83 per capita Interest on Investments (4) $800,000 Percentage of other GF revenue 0.9% of other GF revenue
Gas Tax (4) $3,481,389 Population = 123,842 $28.11 per capita Transient Lodging Taxes
(4) $2,100,000 Service Population =
148,442 Not applied to Project
VLF In-Lieu Case Study Calculation:
Citywide A.V. FY 2024-2025 (4) $25,003,779,276
Proposed Project A.V. at Buildout $52,668,000
Proposed Project as % of Citywide A.V. 0.2106%
VLF In-Lieu FY 2024-2025 $16,385,672
Increase in VLF attributable to Project $34,515
VLF per $1 million in new A.V. $655.33
Notes:
(1) See Table 4 for explanation of service population.
(2) General Fund share based on TRA allocation from the County (see Table 7). (3) Vehicle License Fee (VLF) In-Lieu calculation based on proportional share of citywide A.V. (4) Per 2024-2025 Adopted Ci
ty Budget.
614
Table 6
Off-Site Sales and Use Tax
Oak Road South Project
Basis Per Unit Buildout
New Residential Valuation $877,800 $52,668,000
Household Income 25% of house
valuation $219,450 $13,167,000
Retail Purchases 24% of household
income $52,668 $3,160,080
Taxable Sales 93% of total retail
sales $48,981 $2,938,874
Projected Off-Site Retail
Taxable Sales $48,981 $2,938,874
Portion Captured within City of
Simi Valley 90% $44,083 $2,644,987
Projected Sales and Use Tax
to Simi Valley
Sales Tax 1% of taxable sales $441 $26,450
Use Tax 14.3% of sales tax $63 $3,782
Total Projected Sales and
Use Tax $504 $30,232
615
Table 7
Tax Rate Area (TRA) Allocation
City of Simi Valley
Agency Code Agency TRA 09035
12013101 UNIFIED SCH GEN SIMI 29.137221%
12015101 VTA COM COLLEGE GEN 4.902835%
12015102 VTA COLLEGE CHILD CTR 0.025372%
14001101 COUNTY GENERAL FUND 18.163224%
14001101 COUNTY GENERAL FUND -2.842332%
14002101 ERAF 92-93 SHIFT 4.405086%
14003101 CITY ERAF 92-93 SHIFT 0.207960%
14003101 CITY ERAF 92-93 SHIFT 0.218931%
14004101 ERAF 93-94 SHIFT 9.349788%
14005101 VENTURA CO OFFICE EDUC 1.238718%
16001101 * FIRE PROTECTION DIST 14.098274%
16100101 *VCWPD ADMIN 0.221176%
16130101 *VCWPD ZONE 3 1.022979%
17141101 RANCHO SIMI REC AND PK 5.600455%
17190101 ELRANCHO SIMI CEMETERY 0.039649%
18060101 CITY SIMI VALLEY 4.103337%
18060162 CITY SIMI VALLEY - TEA 2.623401%
18060163 SIMI VALLEY CITY SAN 6.040558%
18060164 SIMI VALLEY SPECIAL ZN 0.682256%
18600101 CALLEGUAS MUN WTR 0.761112%
TOTAL 100.000000%
City of Simi Valley fund codes — combined City General Fund share = 13.4496% of the 1% levy. 616
5/26/26 , 9:15 AM lnbox - Naren Gunasekera - Outlook
Outlook
FW: Oak Road South Developer's Plan to Destroy Mature Historic Oak Trees From Enviroservices <[email protected] >
Date Mon 5/18/2026 8:28 AM
To Stratis Perras <[email protected]>; Naren Gunasekera <[email protected]>; Nikolette Baer <[email protected]>; Sean Gibson <[email protected]> Cc Kelly Kassel <[email protected]>
FYI
J. 'Ratnir~
From: @aol.com @aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2026 10:03 PM
To: Enviroservices <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Oak Road South Developer's Plan to Destroy Mature Historic Oak Trees CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect a phishing attempt please report it as phishing. Learn how.
Please halt the project- violating the tree protections under Simi Valley Municipal Code. Save the trees!
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: @aol.com [email protected]>
To: [email protected]_ <[email protected]>; dcavanaugh@s imivalleY..org <dcavanaugh@simiva lleY..org>; [email protected] <elitster@sim ivalleY..org>; mjudge@s imivalleY..org <mjudge@sim ivalleY..org>; [email protected] <rrhodes@s imivalleY..org>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2026 at 04:40:23 PM PDT
Subject: Oak Road South Developer's Plan to Destroy Mature Historic Oak Trees May 15, 2026
Re: Oak Road South Developer's Plan to Destroy Mature Historic Oak Trees Dear Councilmembers and City Attorney:
Sentry Property Group, Inc. (Developer) is planning to destroy the various mature, healthy Valley Oak trees and clear-cut nearly the entirety of various other species of trees and vegetation at the proposed "Oak Road South Development" (previously "Oak Road Townhomes"). The street was named after the trees that have called this land their home for 100-500 years.
I respectfully urge each of you to personally visit the site before any final decision is made.
Trees identified as T 41 and T1 may well be among Simi Valley's oldest living original https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/ AAQkAGFiZmUwYTQwL T JkZjMtNGQ40S 1 hNzg2LWI4M DU 1 MDJ iZGQxNAAQANOVuWcORjlM iqh4 Y dAdBvg. .. 1 /3 Attachment I
617
5/26/26, 9:15 AM lnbox - Naren Gunasekera - Outlook
residents. These majestic trees are irreplaceable living landmarks and part of Simi Valley's natural history and legacy.
Sentry's current proposal is noncompliant with Simi Valley's Tree Preservation Ordinance, including SVMC Section 9-38.050(C)(3) which requires that "the design of the development shall address preservation of the most desirable and significant of the healthy trees and the developer shall utilize creative land planning techniques to achieve that end." Sentry, in it's most recent proposal, has failed in this mandate.
On January 23, 2023, Sentry/Developer Sal Provenza requested and obtained a zoning change from "Medium Density" to "Moderate Density" Residential based on a project specifically presented as one that would preserve the mature oak trees. Mr. Provenza assured the sitting Councilmembers that at least three mature oaks would be "preserved," incorporated into the design, and featured near proposed on-site "pocket parks."
The renderings shown to the Council prominently depicted the mature trees as part of the project's open space design, and even the "representative" project photos displayed mature oak trees integrated throughout similar developments--prompting complimentary remarks from Councilmember, now Mayor, Cavanaugh.
All of you, except Mr. Ayala who was not yet on the Council, were present and heard those assurances firsthand. After securing the zoning change approval, however, the developer abandoned those commitments and removed the mature trees from the revised 'detached townhome' plan. The current proposal is not rooted in environmental stewardship or preservation of the community's "fabric"-- Mr. Provenza's own word in 2023, but instead in maximizing density, despite prior assurances that greater density was not the goal.
Sentry's retained arborist's Tree Evaluation deliberately omits any discussion of the trees' ages and historic or legacy significance because the developer wants the trees removed and does not intend to comply with the preservation purpose of Simi Valley's Tree Ordinance, Chapter 9-38, unless required to do so.
Acknowledging the trees' historic significance would trigger protections aimed at preserving the trees in their natural habitat. By ignoring the vital factors that make these centuries-old oaks irreplaceable, the report presents an incomplete and distorted assessment.
Along that same misleading vein, the developer's earlier promises of meaningful open space and tree preservation have vanished. The current proposal drastically reduces open space, minimizes setbacks and separation around and between units, shrinks common areas, and abandons prior commitments to preserve the mature oak trees that were once presented as focal points of the project.
These mature oaks are living natural infrastructure and provide ecological value, shade, habitat, and a direct link to the City's history. These irreplaceable indigenous trees deserve preservation and are entitled to it under our City's Tree Ordinance.
Please take a stand and deny the Oak Road South proposal (June 8, 2026 Agenda item). Require the developer to preserve and incorporate the mature trees into a revised proposal for your future consideration. These vintage oak trees deserve to remain living in their home.
Thank you for your service and concern for our community.
Sincerely,
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/ AAQkAGFiZmUwYTQwL T JkZjMtNGQ40S 1 h Nzg2LWl4M DU 1 MDJiZGQxNAAQANOVuWcORjl Miqh4 Y dAd Bvg. .. 2/3 618
5/26/26, 9:15AM lnbox - Naren Gunasekera - Outlook
Heather Moss
Simi Valley Resident and Business Member
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFiZmUwYTQwLTJkZjMtNGQ40S1hNzg2LWl4MDU1MDJiZGQxNAAQANOVuWcORjlMiqh4YdAdBvg ... 3/3 619
2530 Gateway Road 760-632-4840
Carlsbad, CA 92009 www.ajg.com
USA
May 21, 2026
Oak R
oad South Owners LLC
RE:
Overhanging trees and HOA property Insurance
Dear HO
A Board:
We w
ould like to draw your attention to a material underwriting concern related to the large oak trees located throughout the property.
These trees are substantial in size and, in many cases, extend over or are in close proximity to the structures. While mature oak trees can enhance the aesthetic appeal of a property, they also present significant risk exposures—particularly given that the property is located within a high wildfire severity zone.
From a liability standpoint, the size and condition of these trees create an elevated risk of bodily injury and property damage. Large limbs have the potential to break and fall without warning, which can result in damage to roofs, vehicles, and other property, as well as serious injury to individuals on-site.
From a property insurance perspective, the wildfire exposure is even more concerning. Overhanging branches can act as a direct pathway for fire to reach the structures. In a wildfire event, these limbs are highly susceptible to ignition and can fall onto the buildings, significantly increasing the likelihood of roof ignition and a total loss scenario.
Additionally, the ongoing cost to properly maintain and manage these very large oak trees—including pruning, risk mitigation, and removal where necessary—is becoming increasingly prohibitive.
Given these combined factors, carriers are taking a very strict underwriting position on properties with overhanging vegetation in high wildfire zones. As a result, this condition may limit available markets, lead to restrictive terms, or result in a declination to quote coverage altogether.
We strongly recommend a proactive approach to addressing this exposure, as it will be a critical factor in securing and maintaining favorable insurance terms.
Please let me know of any questions.
Sincerely,
Robert Cohen, Area VP
Arthur J Gallagher Risk and Insurance Services
620