Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
2018 Tree Survey Results To Be Preserved
Outside of 2024 Project Limits
Black walnut
Coast live oak
Tree of heaven
Valley oak
793
Tap
oCan
yon Rd
Tapo Ca
nyon
Rd
Lost
Cany ons Dr
4640
4599
4598
4637
369
367
4638
4641
4664
4600
4855
4631
4635
365
362
4633
321
4636
366
4632
4634
4657
55 54
4856
4854
4640
0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison
Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
Area of Temporary Impact
2018 Tree Survey Results To Be Preserved
Outside of 2024 Project Limits
Valley oak
Current Trees To Be Removed
California sycamore
Coast live oak
Valley oak
Currrent Trees To Be Relocated
California sycamore
Coast live oak
Current Trees To be Preserved Outside of
Project Limits
Coast live oak
Valley oak
794
Tapo Canyon Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
Presidio
Dr
240
4863
4861
254
4862
238
4859
4857
4858
235
4860
237
249 0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison
Project Limits (2024)
Current Trees To Be Removed
Black walnut
Coast live oak
Valley oak
Currrent Trees To Be Relocated
Black walnut
Coast live oak
Current Trees To be Preserved Outside of
Project Limits
Coast live oak
795
ATTACHMENT 2 – TREE APPRAISAL WORKSHEETS
796
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 54
dbh @ : 10in Height: 20ft Area: 14.4ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 50%
Form: 50%
Condition 62%
Comments: dying branches in lower canopy, crowded and leaning from tree 55 Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential: crowding and leaning caused by tree #55
Photo of Tree
797
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 55
dbh @ : 6, 12, 14, 3.5, 4in Height: 20ft Area: 43.3ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 41%
Form: 40%
Condition 61%
Comments: few dead branches near bottom, major crossing branches Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential: Crowding with tree #54
Photo of Tree
798
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 235
dbh @ : 20.25, 10.75, 16.5, 20in Height: 25ft Area: 48ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A-
Structure: 80%
Form: 65%
Condition 79%
Comments: active wood rat nest in center trunk, on a slope, scattered dead branches Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
799
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 237
dbh @ : 20.5, 33in Height: 31ft Area: 60.75ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 70%
Form: 85%
Condition 78%
Comments: minor dead branches
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
800
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Valley oak ID: 238
dbh @ : 25.5in Height: 40ft Area: 50.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 45%
Form: 50%
Condition 51%
Comments: thin canopy, witch’s hair, next to road
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
801
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 240
dbh @ : 29, 9.25in Height: 39ft Area: 43.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 80%
Form: 58%
Condition 78%
Comments: interior branch dieback, woodpecker holes, epicormic shoots, ants, near wood rat nest Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
802
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 249
dbh @ : 18, 21 Height: 45ft Area: 49.75
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 80%
Form: 70%
Condition 79%
Comments: Wood rat nest, insect damage, healed old wounds, fissures on major limbs, barbed wire at base of trunk, near the road
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
803
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 254
dbh @ : 16.5in Height: 38ft Area: 38.35ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 80%
Form: 65%
Condition 78%
Comments: adjacent to wood rat nest, canopy overhangs road, minor flagging, few dead branches Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
804
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Valley oak ID: 321
dbh @ : 39in Height: 35ft Area: 55ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 50%
Form: 41%
Condition 55%
Comments: Minor flagging, galls, epicormic shoots, broken branches, minor fire damage, beehive in broken trunk, wolf branches, growing into barbed wire. DBH is less than measured in 2018.
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential: Potential: wolf branches
Photo of Tree
805
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 362
dbh @ : 13, 33.3in Height: 37ft Area: 66ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 57%
Form: 62%
Condition 66%
Comments: Several dead limbs, interior foliage thin, some bark splitting, drought stress. DBH discrepancy due to exclusion of trunks that are now dead.
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
No image captured of tree.
806
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 365
dbh @ : 12.2, 14, 6, 4.3in Height: 22ft Area: 29.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 41%
Form: 40%
Condition 61%
Comments: Thin canopy, fungal issue on branches, other oak's canopy hanging causing the tree to lean Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential: Asymmetrical growth
Photo of Tree
807
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 366
dbh @ : 30in Height: 30ft Area: 44.9ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 75%
Form: 70%
Condition 76%
Comments: cankers/galls on trunk, bore holes, dead branches in inner canopy Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
808
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 367
dbh @ : 22in Height: 26ft Area: 36.3ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 55%
Form: 60%
Condition 52%
Comments: significant bore hole damage in trunk, sparse canopy, crowded by other oak (366) Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential: Insect damage
Photo of Tree
809
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 369
dbh @ : 29, 5in Height: 25ft Area: 33.3ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 80%
Form: 80%
Condition 96%
Comments: minor signs of past insect and sunburn damage to trunk, canopy has dense vigorous growth Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
810
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 388
dbh @ : 13.6, 12.5, 14.2, 3.2in Height: 24ft Area: 30.6ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 85%
Form: 85%
Condition 80%
Comments: Minor branch dieback, minor flagging. Was previously tree ID #4101.
Functional limitations: from parking lot
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
811
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4006
dbh @ : 19.5in Height: 44ft Area: 36.1ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 78%
Form: 65%
Condition 76%
Comments: Insect damage on half of trunk, thickened bark, splitting branches. Other tag on tree not associated with the survey is #391.
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
812
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Fremont cottonwood ID: 4007
dbh @ : 8.7, 8.4in Height: 21ft Area: 20.6ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 21%
Form: 31%
Condition 44%
Comments: 1/3 of canopy dead, insect damage, broken limbs, drought stress, twig dieback Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
813
4047 Lost Canyon 10/7/18
Gerhard Bombe, ASLA, Certified Arborist #WC1888A
Populus fremontii
70 11
80 70 80
76 50
5.5 23.75
1,200
1,200
2,400
62 121
94.99 94.99
62 2,400
50 70
1,810
76 1,813.29
71.24 6,816.88
6,816.88
23.75 71.24
814
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4091
dbh @ : 8.5in Height: 12ft Area: 20ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 65%
Form: 63%
Condition 68%
Comments: minimal flagging
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
815
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4181
dbh @ : 5.5, 6.5, 6.5, 5, 4, 4, 6, 5, 4.5, 5, 4, 4, 4,
3.5in
Height: 12ft Area: 49ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 35%
Form: 10%
Condition 45%
Comments: Many large trunks died back, resprouted from base. DBH discrepancy due to exclusion of dead trunks.
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
816
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4182
dbh @ : 12.5, 4, 3.8, 13.75, 3, 3.5, 4, 4, 3.5, 3.5,
3.5, 4, 4, 5in
Height: 13ft Area: 37.8ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 35%
Form: 10%
Condition 45%
Comments: Fire damage, main trunks mainly dead, a lot of current trunks are resprouts. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential: dieback and regrowth form not ideal for transplant
Photo of Tree
817
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Fremont cottonwood ID: 4187
dbh @ : 12.5, 9.25in Height: 35ft Area: 34.35ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 55%
Form: 61%
Condition 52%
Comments: broken limbs, nutrient deficiencies, drought stress, ants, dense shrub understory Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
818
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4510
dbh @ : 10.7in Height: 15ft Area: 28ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 60%
Form: 60%
Condition 67%
Comments: A lot of shrubs in understory, minor branch dieback Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
819
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4511
dbh @ : 7.5, 6.2, 6.7, 5.2, 5.5in Height: 16ft Area: 31.3ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 70%
Form: 60%
Condition 74%
Comments: Some spots on trunk, thin canopy inside (interior branch dieback). DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
820
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4513
dbh @ : 7.7, 6.2, 8.6in Height: 10.2ft Area: 25.9ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 70%
Form: 60%
Condition 93%
Comments: Gopher holes, adjacent to large Toyon – creating asymmetrical form. Drought-stressed Functional limitations: from parking lot
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
821
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: ID:
dbh @ : 10, 5.2in Height: 8.3ft Area: 18.9ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 55%
Form: 45%
Condition 64%
Comments: minor branch dieback, exposed roots, super compacted Functional limitations: from parking lot
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
822
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4515
dbh @ : 4.6, 8, 5.3in Height: 9.5ft Area: 19.3ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 70%
Form: 60%
Condition 74%
Comments: Parking lot. Minor branch dieback, oozing out of previous prune scar. A tag not associated to the inventory was labeled #385.
Functional limitations: from parking lot
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
823
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4516
dbh @ : 5, 3.8, 4.3, 4.5, 9, 5.5in Height: 16ft Area: 24.6ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 41%
Form: 45%
Condition 50%
Comments: Roots exposed, small mammal burrowing, yellowing leaves, sparse foliage in some areas, major crossing branches. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
824
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4517
dbh @ : 13.3, 12.5in Height: 20ft Area: 29ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 50%
Form: 90%
Condition 59%
Comments: Ants, fissures, decaying regions, insect damage (boring), exposed roots, burrowing mammals, interior canopy thin. DBH discrepancy due to exclusion of trunks that were now dead.
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
825
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4518
dbh @ : 8.5, 7, 14.5in Height: 15ft Area: 29.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 83%
Form: 80%
Condition 78%
Comments: bottom branches bigger than top. Exposed roots, gopher damage, moderate branch dieback, bottom branches bigger than top
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
826
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4519
dbh @ : 14.2in Height: 21ft Area: 33.8ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 50%
Form: 62%
Condition 66%
Comments: Minor insect damage on trunk, small mammal root exposure, surrounded by concrete, leaning Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
827
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4523
dbh @ : 12.5in Height: 18ft Area: 27.3ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 50%
Form: 58%
Condition 66%
Comments: Ants, tree leaning
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
828
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4524
dbh @ : 10.8, 4, 14.6in Height: 18ft Area: 30.1ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 75%
Form: 78%
Condition 87%
Comments: Exposed roots, burrowing, some crossing branches. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential: originally assessed as non-transplantable by Chambers Group, but re-assessed by Senna Tree Company and they are confident it can be relocated. Tree has been changed to Transplantable now.
Photo of Tree
829
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4525
dbh @ : 9.8, 6.8in Height: 14.5ft Area: 20.9ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 50%
Form: 50%
Condition 65%
Comments: Grassy understory, significant crossing branches Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
830
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4526
dbh @ : 13.8in Height: 9.5ft Area: 26.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 75%
Form: 81%
Condition 95%
Comments: Mammal burrows near exposed roots, weedy understory Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
831
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4527
dbh @ : 8, 3, 4.5, 6.5in Height: 10ft Area: 23.2ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 80%
Form: 60%
Condition 88%
Comments: Exposed roots with burrowing mammals
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
832
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4529
dbh @ : 8.7in Height: 14ft Area: 21.45ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 65%
Form: 60%
Condition 66%
Comments: Small mammal burrows at base of trunk, minor flagging Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
833
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4530
dbh @ : 8, 8.5in Height: 16ft Area: 22.75ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 60%
Form: 78%
Condition 72%
Comments: Insect damage, ants, dense understory, adjacent to shrubs Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
834
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4531
dbh @ : 9.7, 5.25in Height: 17ft Area: 22ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A-
Structure: 76%
Form: 79%
Condition 77%
Comments: Burrowing mammals underneath
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
835
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4532
dbh @ : 8.7in Height: 15ft Area: 26.5
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 82%
Form: 80%
Condition 77%
Comments: Thin canopy, surrounded on 3 sides by pavement, adjacent to large coyote brush Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
836
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4536
dbh @ : 13.5in Height: 22ft Area: 28.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 78%
Form: 78%
Condition 74%
Comments: Minor flagging, branches touching ground, some interior branch dieback Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
837
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4537
dbh @ : 8.2, 6in Height: 16ft Area: 22ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 58%
Form: 75%
Condition 68%
Comments: Shrubs in understory, secondary trunk with offshoots Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
838
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4538
dbh @ : 3, 4.5, 5in Height: 14ft Area: 15.75ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 68%
Form: 61%
Condition 67%
Comments: Two competing stems at base, shrubs in understory, minor twig dieback Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
839
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4539
dbh @ : 10.5, 4.5in Height: 19ft Area: 24.25ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 75%
Form: 60%
Condition 57%
Comments: Major sapsucker damage, boring insect damage, shrubs under canopy, thin canopy Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
840
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4541
dbh @ : 13.5, 5.3, 4in Height: 21ft Area: 30.25ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 78%
Form: 80%
Condition 58%
Comments: Insect damage, large canker on trunk, ants, twig dieback, small mammal burrows under roots. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
841
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4542
dbh @ : 7.75in Height: 22ft Area: 20.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 55%
Form: 60%
Condition 52%
Comments:. Epicormic shoots, close to pavement on 2 sides Functional limitations: Parking lot
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
842
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4543
dbh @ : 9.25in Height: 20ft Area: 21.75ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 55
Form: 60
Condition 52%
Comments: Branch dieback, surrounded on 3 sides by pavement, drought stressed, thinning canopy Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
843
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4544
dbh @ : 5.75, 6.8, 5.5, 8.5in Height: 22ft Area: 25.75ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 60%
Form: 68%
Condition 70%
Comments: Crossed stems, epicormic shoots, minor branch dieback Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
844
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4545
dbh @ : 6.1, 7.8, 9.5, 8.5in Height: 22ft Area: 33.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 61%
Form: 61%
Condition 67%
Comments: Small mammal burrows, fungal issues on trunk, minor flagging, surrounded by pavement on 3 sides Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
845
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4548
dbh @ : 16.5in Height: 48ft Area: 32ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A-
Structure: 78%
Form: 83%
Condition 77%
Comments: Claw marks, thickened bark in patches, adjacent to building Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
846
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Strawberry tree ID: 4549
dbh @ : 3.75, 3, 4.5, 4, 4in Height: 14ft Area: 18.75ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 61%
Form: 58%
Condition 66%
Comments: Parking lot. Adjacent to building
Functional limitations: Parking lot. Adjacent to building
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
847
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4554
dbh @ : 3.3, 6, 7.75in Height: 12ft Area: 18.8ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 80%
Form: 81%
Condition 96%
Comments: Minor flagging, dead branches inside canopy, some wolf branches. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
848
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: coast live oak ID: 4555
dbh @ : 5.5, 5.3, 4.7, 3.7, 5.6, 3.3in Height: 20ft Area: 30.5ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 60%
Form: 65%
Condition 67%
Comments: Leaves slightly sparse, mistletoe. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
849
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4556
dbh @ : 8.5, 5.2, 7.6, 11, 6, 4.7in Height: 18ft Area: 35ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 80%
Form: 80%
Condition 96%
Comments: Minimal dead branches
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
850
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4557
dbh @ : 14.5, 3in Height: 15ft Area: 25ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 81%
Form: 80%
Condition 96%
Comments:. Some areas of sparse leaves, roots exposed by burrowing mammals Functional limitations: Parking lot
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
851
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4558
dbh @ : 9, 4.1, 4.8, 4.6in Height: 9ft Area: 23.3ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 50%
Form: 50%
Condition 62%
Comments: Old dead branches, lots of new growth, asymmetric form. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
852
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4559
dbh @ : 11.3in Height: 15ft Area: 30.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 70%
Form: 60%
Condition 93%
Comments: Leaning, minor insect damage, branches touching ground Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
853
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4560
dbh @ : 10.3, 11.4in Height: 15ft Area: 25.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 81%
Form: 81%
Condition 97%
Comments: Tree is in good health.
Functional limitations: from parking lot
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
854
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4562
dbh @ : 6.75, 9in Height: 18ft Area: 23.8ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 55%
Form: 55%
Condition 63%
Comments: Insect damage, dieback
Functional limitations: from parking lot
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
855
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4563
dbh @ : 19.75, 11, 4.75in Height: 20ft Area: 42.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 80%
Form: 81%
Condition 96%
Comments: minor flagging, dead branches in middle of canopy Functional limitations: from parking lot
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
856
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4564
dbh @ : 13, 10, 4in Height: 20ft Area: 22.8ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A-
Structure: 70%
Form: 70%
Condition 75%
Comments: Insect damage, oozing on trunk
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
857
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4565
dbh @ : 8in Height: 9ft Area: 17ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 61%
Form: 61%
Condition 67%
Comments: Epicormic growth at base
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
858
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4566
dbh @ : 5.2, 3.1, 3.2in Height: 10ft Area: 16ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 80%
Form: 75%
Condition 77%
Comments: twig dieback
Functional limitations: from parking lot
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
859
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4567
dbh @ : 9, 6.5, 8, 6.3in Height: 20ft Area: 30.8ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 81%
Form: 85%
Condition 97%
Comments: minor twig dieback
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
860
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4568
dbh @ : 9.5in Height: 20ft Area: 27.8ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 41%
Form: 41%
Condition 61%
Comments: some twig dieback, leaf fungal damage, form of branches unbalanced Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
861
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4570
dbh @ : 7.5, 3.5, 4.5, 3in Height: 15ft Area: 22ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 70%
Form: 70%
Condition 93%
Comments: minor asymmetry
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
862
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4571
dbh @ : 6.25, 11.25, 6in Height: 9.5ft Area: 26.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 80%
Form: 50%
Condition 76%
Comments: Minor dead branches
Functional limitations: from parking lot
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
863
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4572
dbh @ : 14.75, 10.6, 5.5in Height: 18ft Area: 38.9ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 82%
Form: 81%
Condition 98%
Comments: Sapsucker damage, burrowing mammals. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
864
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4576
dbh @ : 4.2, 4.4, 4.9, 3.1in Height: 8ft Area: 14ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 64%
Form: 61%
Condition 65%
Comments: several branches dying back
Functional limitations: from parking lot
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
865
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4577
dbh @ : 7, 12, 8in Height: 11ft Area: 32.8ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 80%
Form: 80%
Condition 96%
Comments: Minimal dead branches within inner canopy, some branches touching ground. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small. Previously recorded as tree ID #4561.
Functional limitations: from parking lot
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
866
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4578
dbh @ : 11, 12.2in Height: 20ft Area: 26.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 81%
Form: 81%
Condition 97%
Comments: Minimal dead branches within canopy. Was previously tree ID #4553 Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
867
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4579
dbh @ : 5in Height:10ft Area: 14ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: D
Aesthetic: C-
Structure: 21%
Form: 35%
Condition 24%
Comments: Newly identified tree in 2024. Previous DBH fell below threshold for protection. Very sparse leaves, dead branches, epicormic growth from base.
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
868
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4580
dbh @ : 9.1in Height: 24ft Area: 24ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 81%
Form: 78%
Condition 77%
Comments: Minor fungal leaf issues. Was previously tree ID #4570 Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
869
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4597
dbh @ : 5.75, 3.2, 3.5, 4, 5.1, 3.1, 3.3, 4, 3.2, 3.1,
3.2in
Height: 10ft Area: 28.4ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: D
Aesthetic: F
Structure: 4%
Form: 25%
Condition 15%
Comments: Branch dieback, leaf dieback from fungus, sparse canopy, resprout from fire. Previously recorded as Tree ID #4700.
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo o
f Tree
870
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4598
dbh @ : 11.8, 4.4, 9.5, 4in Height: 12ft Area: 35ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 41%
Form: 21%
Condition 46%
Comments: Newly identified tree in 2024. Tree previously fell outside grading limits. Growing on hillside, some bare branches, drooping, dead branches inside canopy/low density canopy.
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
871
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4599
dbh @ : 11.7, 9, 10, 7, 7in Height: 16ft Area: 38.3ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 50%
Form: 30%
Condition 62%
Comments: Newly identified tree in 2024. Tree previously fell outside grading limits. Growing/drooping on hillside toward road, some branch die-off.
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
872
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4600
dbh @ : 19.8in Height:18ft Area: 27.2ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 45%
Form: 61%
Condition 64%
Comments: Newly identified tree in 2024. Tree previously fell outside grading limits. Insect damage to main trunk, scraggly branches growing from trunk base, sparse foliage due to fungal infection under canopy, some branch dieback
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
873
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4631
dbh @ : 6, 12.75, 10.75, 4.5in Height: 35ft Area: 27.7ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 22%
Form: 25%
Condition 35%
Comments: thickened bark at base, some dead branches, very narrow canopy, mistletoe present Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
874
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4632
dbh @ : N/A Height: N/A Area: N/A
Age/stage of development: Dead Core collected: No
Health: F
Aesthetics: F
Structure: 0
Form: 0
Condition 0%
Comments: Tree is dead. In 2018 DBH was 24 inches and Health was C. Tree health declined and was dead in 2024
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
875
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4633
dbh @ : 9.8, 10.7, 9in Height: 34ft Area: 32ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 75%
Form: 65%
Condition 75%
Comments: thin canopy, drought stress, shrubby understory Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
876
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4634
dbh @ : 28.7in Height: 30ft Area: 41.6ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 62%
Form: 70%
Condition 71%
Comments: Fungal issues, crossing branches. DBH discrepancy due to exclusion of trunks that were now dead.
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
877
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4635
dbh @ : 14, 13.6in Height: 18ft Area: Area: 36ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: D+
Structure: 61%
Form: 45%
Condition 51%
Comments: Minor oozing, insect damage, thin canopy impacted by crowding from # 4634, dying branches Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
878
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4636
dbh @ : 20, 4in Height: 19ft Area: 42ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 55%
Form: 58%
Condition 63%
Comments: Wood rat scat on floor, insect damage, minor fungal issues, thin canopy, dying branches, competing for light. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
879
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4637
dbh @ : 12.75in Height: 30ft Area: 35.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 65%
Form: 60%
Condition 68%
Comments: Slight lean, area used for parking, exposed roots, soil compaction & weathering Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
880
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4638
dbh @ : 20.8in Height: 25ft Area: 50.25ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 70%
Form: 65%
Condition 73%
Comments: Area under trees compacted from parked cars, exposed roots, soil weathering, adjacent to road Functional limitations: Area under trees compacted from parked cars, exposed roots, soil weathering, adjacent to road
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
881
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Valley oak ID: 4640
dbh @ : 44in Height: 35ft Area: 47.5ft
Age/stage of development: Over-mature Core collected: No Health: D
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 15%
Form: 35%
Condition 15%
Comments: Burl, broken branches, 2 larger limbs remain but others have died and broken off, old fire damage Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
882
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4641
dbh @ : 19in Height: 20ft Area: 35.4ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 87%
Form: 85%
Condition 98%
Comments: Minor branch dieback in inner canopy
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
883
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4642
dbh @ : 6, 3.3, 3.7, 3.4, 4, 3.5in Height: 10ft Area: 30.3ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: D
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 21%
Form: 21%
Condition 22%
Comments: Fire damage, dead branches, insect damage, sparse foliage with fungus. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.
Functional limitations: damage at base, bad form
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
884
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4643
dbh @ : 5, 3.6, 3.6, 4, 3, 4.6, 4, 3, 3.5in Height: 11ft Area: 31.5ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: D
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 40%
Form: 23%
Condition 28%
Comments: Many dead branches, old fire damage, sparse foliage with fungus, insect damage Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
885
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4644
dbh @ : 4.2, 5, 3.3, 3, 3.6, 4.4, 4.5, 4, 3.8in Height: 12ft Area: 32.5ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: D
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 25%
Form: 40%
Condition 25%
Comments: Large woodrat nest at base, old fire damage, insect damage, dead and broken branches, sparse foliage with fungus
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
886
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4645
dbh @ : 4.8, 3.7, 3.5, 3.5, 3.8, 3.3, 3, 4.2, 3.1, 3.3,
3.3in
Height: 10ft Area: 32.3ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: D
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 25%
Form: 40%
Condition 25%
Comments: Old fire damage, dead branches, sparse foliage with fungus. DBH discrepancy due to exclusion of trunks that were now dead.
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
887
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4657
dbh @ : 13.8, 7.2, 11.6in Height: 38ft Area: 43ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 50%
Form: 60%
Condition 62%
Comments: Bore holes from insects, fungal issues on leaves, long horizontal branches Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
888
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4664
dbh @ : 5.25, 6, 4.5, 3.5, 5.5in Height: 20ft Area: 24ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 70%
Form: 75%
Condition 57%
Comments: A few dead branches, signs of Anthracnose
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
889
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4850
dbh @ : 5.6in Height: 8.4ft Area: 12.6ft
Age/stage of development: Semi-mature Core collected: No Health: C
Aesthetic: C-
Structure: 41%
Form: 61%
Condition 51%
Comments: Thin canopy, dying branches, insect damage, sparse & sickly foliage, potential fungal infection. Tree was below minimum DBH threshold for protection in 2018.
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
890
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4851
dbh @ :10.2 Height: 14 Area: 27.3
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 50%
Form: 50%
Condition 51
Comments: Parking lot. Yellowing leaves, thin canopy, 3 sides surrounded by concrete. Was previously tree ID #4512
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
891
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4852
dbh @ : 16.75in Height: 42ft Area: 40.25ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 80%
Form: 80%
Condition 96%
Comments: Past pruning created minor asymmetry to keep away from building, minimal insect damage. Was previously tree ID #4005
Functional limitations: Parking lot and beside building.
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
892
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4854
dbh @ : 25.5in Height: 26ft Area: 46.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 62%
Form: 58%
Condition 53%
Comments: Crossing branches, twig dieback (particularly in the interior canopy), area used to park under, drought stress, old insect damage
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
893
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4855
dbh @ : 23in Height: 32ft Area: 50.25ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 70%
Form: 80%
Condition 76%
Comments: minor flagging, area used to park under, adjacent to road, exposed roots Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
894
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4856
dbh @ : 21.1in Height: 28ft Area: 39ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 68%
Form: 65%
Condition 68%
Comments: Minor staining on some upper branches, area used to park under, adjacent to road Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
895
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4857
dbh @ : 15.5, 4in Height: 35ft Area: 24ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 60%
Form: 58%
Condition 66%
Comments: Trunk fissure, crossing branches, close competition with walnut, adjacent to road Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
896
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4858
dbh @ : 8.5, 4.2, 9.5, 8, 3, 3, 3.5, 4in Height: 18ft Area: 25ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 50%
Form: 60%
Condition 72%
Comments: Large cable running through trunk, many dead stems from base, crossing branches, dying limbs, insect damage
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
897
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4859
dbh @ : 6, 4.75in Height: 11ft Area: 17ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 40%
Form: 42%
Condition 57%
Comments: leaning, growing along the ground, shaded by other walnut, cut branches, adjacent to distribution pool, near the road
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
898
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4860
dbh @ : 13, 9.75in Height: 16ft Area: 34ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 38%
Form: 42%
Condition 49%
Comments: Growing along ground, major diseased limb, shaded by other oak, on a slope, wood rat nest Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
899
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4861
dbh @ : 9.5, 12.2, 10.25in Height: 18ft Area: 42ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 82%
Form: 78%
Condition 76%
Comments: Dead branches on the interior, minor flagging, drought stress Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
900
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4862
dbh @ : 3, 3, 4.5, 3.5, 4, 4.5in Height: 16ft Area: 31ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 75%
Form: 62%
Condition 73%
Comments: Small mammal burrows underneath trunk, some interior branch dieback, shrubs in the understory, adjacent to road
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
901
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4863
dbh @ : 54.1in Height: 45ft Area: 68.25ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 55%
Form: 60%
Condition 53%
Comments: Loss of major limb, other dead branches, crossing stems, cavity in trunk, insect damage, some fungal issues
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
902
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4864
dbh @ : 9, 8.25, 6.5in Height: 18ft Area: 19.25ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 62%
Form: 58%
Condition 53%
Comments: Ants present, interior branch dieback, canker at base of trunk, insect damage. Was previously tree ID #4528
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
903
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4865
dbh @ : 4.5, 4.5, 4, 3.5, 2in Height: 13ft Area: 19.25ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 45%
Form: 60%
Condition 53%
Comments: Some fissures and spreading back on several stems, crossing limbs. New tree previously not recorded in parking lot.
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
904
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4866
dbh @ : 12.3in Height: 50ft Area: 35ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 82%
Form: 81%
Condition 97%
Comments: Ants present, shrubs at base of trunk causing thickened bark on one side. Was previously tree ID #4552
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
905
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4867
dbh @ : 16.5in Height: 45ft Area: 31.35ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 62%
Form: 50%
Condition 65%
Comments: Growing adjacent to building, leaning, near culvert, epicormic shoots, thickened bark. Was previously tree ID #4551.
Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
906
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Strawberry tree ID: 4868
dbh @ : 3, 4, 3, 3, 3.5in Height: 14ft Area: 19.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A-
Structure: 78%
Form: 65%
Condition 95%
Comments: Adjacent to building
Functional limitations: Parking lot and adjacent to building
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
907
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4869
dbh @ : 11, 9.5in Height: 18ft Area: 30.75ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 60%
Form: 70%
Condition 67%
Comments: Parking lot. Minor flagging, major trunk lean, mistletoe. Was previously tree ID #4540.
Functional limitations:
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
908
Appraisal Field Data Sheet
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.
Current as of October 2020.
Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4870
dbh @ : 4.5in Height: 14ft Area: 16.75ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 45%
Form: 41%
Condition 61%
Comments: Crossed branches, competing with other shrubs, thin canopy Functional limitations: Parking lot.
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:
Photo of Tree
909
ATTACHMENT 3 – SUMMARY TABLE OF TREES BY STATUS
910
Tree ID Species 2024 DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Cross-
Sectional
Area (in^2)
Unit Cost Per
Sq. In. Basic Cost Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%) Form (%) Depreciated
Cost
Depreciated
Cost w/
Functional
Limitations
Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.
Installation
2024 Appraised
Value*
2018 Appraisal
Value To Be Removed To Be Relocated
To be Preserved
(Outside of
Project Limits)
Transplantable (Y
or N)
54 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 10 Single 78.50 $55.27 $4,338.84 14.4 20 B 62 C 50 50 $2,690.08 $2,690.08 Dying branches in lower canopy, crowded and leaning from tree 55 -118.7204 34.304909 $210.00 $2,900.00 N/A x N 55 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 39.5 Multi-
Trunk 1,224.80 $55.27 $67,696.80 43.3 20 B 61 C 41 40 $41,295.05 $41,295.05 Few dead branches near bottom, major crossing branches -118.72057 34.3049592 $210.00 $41,510.00 N/A x N 235 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 67.5 Multi-
Trunk 3,576.66 $55.27 $197,688.53 48 25 B 79 A- 80 65 $156,173.94 $156,173.94 Active wood rat nest in center trunk, on a slope, scattered dead branches, -118.72014 34.3021978 $210.00 $156,380.00 N/A x N 237 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 53.5 Multi-
Trunk 2,246.87 $55.27 $124,188.53 60.75 31 B 78 A 70 85 $96,867.06 $96,867.06 Minor dead branches -118.72013 34.302589 $210.00 $97,080.00 N/A x N 238 Valley oak (Quercus
lobata) 25.5 Single 510.45 $102.65 $52,396.18 50.5 40 C 51 C 45 50 $26,722.05 $26,722.05 Thin canopy, witch’s hair, next to road -118.72029 34.3026737 $390.00 $27,110.00 N/A x N 240 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 38.25 Multi-
Trunk 1,148.50 $55.27 $63,479.98 43.5 39 B 78 B+ 80 58 $49,514.39 $49,514.39 Interior branch dieback, woodpecker
holes, epicormic shoots, ants, near wood
t t
-118.72022 34.3032056 $210.00 $49,720.00 N/A x N
249 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 39 Multi-
Trunk 1,193.99 $55.27 $65,993.80 49.75 45 B 79 B+ 80 70 $52,135.10 $52,135.10 Wood rat nest, insect damage, healed
old wounds, fissures on major limbs,
b b d i t b f t k th
-118.72017 34.3020056 $210.00 $52,350.00 N/A x N
254 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 16.5 Single 213.72 $55.27 $11,812.50 38.35 38 B 78 B 80 65 $9,213.75 $9,213.75 Adjacent to wood rat nest, canopy
overhangs road, minor flagging, few
d d b h
-118.72034 34.3024867 $210.00 $9,420.00 N/A x Y
321 Valley oak (Quercus
lobata) 39 Single 1,193.99 $102.65 $122,559.92 55 35 C 55 C 50 41 $67,407.95 $67,407.95 Minor flagging, galls, epicormic shoots,
broken branches, minor fire damage,
b hi i b k t k lf b h
-118.72027 34.3064584 $390.00 $67,800.00 $42,200.00 x N 362 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 46.3 Multi-
Trunk 1,682.80 $55.27 $93,011.34 66 37 B 66 B- 57 62 $61,387.49 $61,387.49 Several dead limbs, interior foliage thin,
some bark splitting, drought stress. DBH
di d t l i f t k
-118.72084 34.3057254 $210.00 $61,600.00 $174,900.00 x N 365 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 36.5 Multi-
Trunk 1,045.82 $55.27 $57,804.24 29.5 22 B 61 C 41 40 $35,260.58 $35,260.58 Thin canopy, fungal issue on branches,
other oak's canopy hanging causing the
t t l
-118.72076 34.3061186 $210.00 $35,470.00 $28,400.00 x N 366 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 30 Single 706.50 $55.27 $39,049.59 44.9 30 B 76 B 75 70 $29,677.69 $29,677.69 Cankers/galls on trunk, bore holes, dead branches in inner canopy -118.72071 34.3060584 $210.00 $29,890.00 $30,800.00 x N 367 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 22 Single 379.94 $55.27 $21,000.00 36.3 26 C 52 C 55 60 $10,920.00 $10,920.00 Significant bore hole damage in trunk,
sparse canopy, crowded by other oak
(366)
-118.72067 34.3061172 $210.00 $11,130.00 $12,500.00 x Y 369 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 34 Multi-
Trunk 907.46 $55.27 $50,157.02 33.3 25 A 96 A 80 80 $48,150.74 $48,150.74 Minor signs of past insect and sunburn
damage to trunk, canopy has dense
i th
-118.7205 34.3062609 $210.00 $48,360.00 $60,800.00 x Y
388 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 43.5 Multi-
Trunk 1,485.42 $55.27 $82,101.76 30.6 24 B 80 A 85 85 $65,681.40 $49,261.05 Parking lot. Minor branch dieback, minor flagging. Was previously tree ID #4101. -118.73408 34.3135413 $210.00 $49,470.00 $61,300.00 x Y 4006 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 19.5 Single 298.50 $94.75 $28,283.06 36.1 44 B 76 B+ 78 65 $21,495.12 $21,495.12 Insect damage on half of trunk,
thickened bark, splitting branches. Other
t t t i t d ith th
-118.73373 34.3142771 $360.00 $21,860.00 $10,000.00 x N 4007 Fremont cottonwood
(Populus fremontii) 17.1 Multi-
Trunk 229.54 $77.04 $17,684.92 20.6 21 C 44 D 21 31 $7,781.36 $7,781.36 1/3 of canopy dead, insect damage,
broken limbs, drought stress, twig
di b k
-118.73497 34.3161618 $366.00 $8,150.00 $2,540.00 x N
4047 Fremont cottonwood
(Populus fremontii ) 11 Multi-
Trunk 10 B C Cut, burned branches. -118.73283 34.312261 $366.00 $1,810.00 $1,810.00 x 4091 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 8.5 Single 56.72 $55.27 $3,134.81 20 12 B 68 B 65 63 $2,131.67 $2,131.67 Minimal flagging -118.73713 34.3115602 $210.00 $2,340.00 $3,140.00 x Y 4181 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 67.5 Multi-
Trunk 3,576.66 $90.01 $321,949.90 49 12 C 45 D 35 10 $144,877.45 $144,877.45 Many large trunks died back, resprouted
from base. DBH discrepancy due to
l i f d d t k
-118.72263 34.3099205 $342.00 $145,220.00 $50,200.00 x N 4182 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 72.05 Multi-
Trunk 4,075.09 $90.01 $366,816.38 37.8 13 C 45 D 35 10 $165,067.37 $165,067.37 Fire damage, main trunks mainly dead, a
lot of current trunks are resprouts. DBH
di d t i l i f t k
-118.72247 34.3097304 $342.00 $165,410.00 $36,000.00 x N 4187 Fremont cottonwood
(Populus fremontii) 21.75 Multi-
Trunk 371.35 $77.04 $28,610.76 34.35 35 C 52 C 55 61 $14,877.60 $14,877.60 Broken limbs, nutrient deficiencies,
drought stress, ants, dense shrub
dt
-118.72905 34.3135246 $366.00 $15,240.00 $5,400.00 x N
4510 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 10.7 Single 89.87 $55.27 $4,967.54 28 15 B 67 B 60 60 $3,328.25 $2,496.19 Parking lot. A lot of shrubs in understory, minor branch dieback -118.73427 34.3133929 $210.00 $2,710.00 $5,700.00 x Y 4511 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 31.1 Multi-
Trunk 759.26 $55.27 $41,965.72 31.3 16 B 74 B 70 60 $31,054.64 $23,290.98 Parking lot. Some spots on trunk, thin
canopy inside (interior branch dieback).
DBH di d t i l i f
-118.73406 34.3132672 $210.00 $23,500.00 $30,800.00 x Y 4513 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 22.5 Multi-
Trunk 397.41 $55.27 $21,965.39 25.9 10.2 A 93 B 70 60 $20,427.82 $15,320.86 Parking lot. Gopher holes, adjacent to
large Toyon - creating asymmetrical
f D ht t d
-118.73385 34.3133484 $210.00 $15,530.00 $23,100.00 x Y 4514 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 15.2 Multi-
Trunk 181.37 $55.27 $10,024.46 18.9 8.3 B 64 B- 55 45 $6,415.66 $4,170.18 Parking lot. Minor branch dieback, exposed roots, super compacted -118.73368 34.3131943 $210.00 $4,380.00 $9,700.00 x Y 4515 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 17.9 Multi-
Trunk 251.52 $55.27 $13,902.09 19.3 9.5 B 74 B 70 60 $10,287.54 $7,715.66 Parking lot. Minor branch dieback,
oozing out of previous prune scar. A tag
t i t d t th i t
-118.73362 34.3130953 $210.00 $7,930.00 $12,600.00 x Y
4516 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 32.1 Multi-
Trunk 808.87 $55.27 $44,707.87 24.6 16 C 50 B- 41 45 $22,353.94 $16,765.45 Parking lot. Roots exposed, small
mammal burrowing, yellowing leaves,
f li i j
-118.73372 34.3131399 $210.00 $16,980.00 $28,000.00 x Y 4517 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 25.8 Multi-
Trunk 522.53 $55.27 $28,881.07 29 20 C 59 B+ 50 90 $17,039.83 $12,779.88 Parking lot. Ants, fissures, decaying
regions, insect damage (boring), exposed
t b i l it i
-118.73411 34.3131256 $210.00 $12,990.00 $64,400.00 x Y 4518 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 30 Multi-
Trunk 706.50 $55.27 $39,049.59 29.5 15 B 78 B+ 83 80 $30,458.68 $22,844.01 Parking lot. Exposed roots, gopher
damage, moderate branch dieback,
b tt b h bi th t
-118.73419 34.3130857 $210.00 $23,050.00 $26,100.00 x Y 4519 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 14.2 Single 158.29 $55.27 $8,748.84 33.8 21 B 66 B 50 62 $5,774.24 $4,330.68 Parking lot. Minor of insect damage on
trunk, small mammal root exposure,
d d b t l i
-118.73406 34.3130743 $210.00 $4,540.00 $9,600.00 x Y
4523 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 12.5 Single 122.66 $55.27 $6,779.44 27.3 18 B 66 B 50 58 $4,474.43 $3,355.82 Parking lot. Ants, tree leaning -118.7341 34.3129518 $210.00 $3,570.00 $9,600.00 x Y 4524 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 29.4 Multi-
Trunk 678.52 $55.27 $37,503.22 30.1 18 A 87 C+ 75 78 $32,627.80 $24,470.85 Parking lot. Exposed roots, burrowing,
some crossing branches. DBH
di d t i l i f t k
-118.73396 34.3129293 $210.00 $24,680.00 $17,900.00 x Y 4525 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 16.6 Multi-
Trunk 216.31 $55.27 $11,956.12 20.9 14.5 B 65 B+ 50 50 $7,771.48 $5,828.61 Parking lot. Grassy understory, significant crossing branches -118.73391 34.3128803 $210.00 $6,040.00 $9,600.00 x Y 4526 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 13.8 Single 149.50 $55.27 $8,262.89 26.5 9.5 A 95 A 75 81 $7,849.75 $5,887.31 Parking lot. Mammal burrows near exposed roots, weedy understory -118.73371 34.3129447 $210.00 $6,100.00 $11,100.00 x Y 4527 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 22 Multi-
Trunk 379.94 $55.27 $21,000.00 23.2 10 A 88 C+ 80 60 $18,480.00 $13,860.00 Parking lot. Exposed roots with burrowing mammals -118.73359 34.3129537 $210.00 $14,070.00 $13,800.00 x Y 4529 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 8.7 Multi-
Trunk 59.42 $55.27 $3,284.07 21.45 14 B 66 B- 65 60 $2,167.49 $1,625.61 Parking lot. Small mammal burrows at base of trunk, minor flagging -118.73457 34.3127195 $210.00 $1,840.00 $4,240.00 x Y 4530 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 16.5 Multi-
Trunk 213.72 $55.27 $11,812.50 22.75 16 B 72 B+ 60 78 $8,505.00 $6,378.75 Parking lot. Insect damage, ants, dense understory, adjacent to shrubs -118.73426 34.3126755 $210.00 $6,590.00 $9,600.00 x Y 4531 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 14.95 Multi-
Trunk 175.45 $55.27 $9,697.42 22 17 B 77 A- 76 79 $7,467.02 $5,600.26 Parking lot. Burrowing mammals underneath -118.73416 34.3126565 $210.00 $5,810.00 $11,100.00 x Y 4532 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 8.7 Single 59.42 $55.27 $3,284.07 26.5 15 B 77 B+ 82 80 $2,528.73 $1,896.55 Parking lot. Thin canopy, surrounded on
3 sides by pavement, adjacent to large
t b h
-118.73413 34.3125936 $210.00 $2,110.00 $2,200.00 x Y
4536 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 13.5 Single 143.07 $55.27 $7,907.54 28.5 22 B 74 B 78 78 $5,851.58 $4,388.69 Parking lot. Minor flagging, branches
touching ground, some interior branch
di b k
-118.73375 34.3126849 $210.00 $4,600.00 $8,200.00 x Y
4537 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 14.2 Multi-
Trunk 158.29 $55.27 $8,748.84 22 16 B 68 B+ 58 75 $5,949.21 $4,461.91 Parking lot. Shrubs in understory, secondary trunk with offshoots -118.73364 34.312521 $210.00 $4,670.00 $4,260.00 x Y 4538 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 12.5 Multi-
Trunk 122.66 $55.27 $6,779.44 15.75 14 B 67 B- 68 61 $4,542.23 $3,406.67 Parking lot. Two competing stems at
base, shrubs in understory, minor twig
di b k
-118.73361 34.3124477 $210.00 $3,620.00 $5,900.00 x N
4539 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 15 Multi-
Trunk 176.63 $55.27 $9,762.40 24.25 19 C 57 C+ 75 60 $5,564.57 $4,173.42 Parking lot. Major sapsucker damage,
boring insect damage, shrubs under
thi
-118.7337 34.3124869 $210.00 $4,380.00 $7,200.00 x N
4541 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 22.8 Multi-
Trunk 408.07 $55.27 $22,555.04 30.25 21 C 58 B 78 80 $13,081.92 $9,811.44 Parking lot. Insect damage, large canker
on trunk, ants, twig dieback, small
l b d t DBH
-118.73402 34.3124552 $210.00 $10,020.00 $16,600.00 x N 4542 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 7.75 Single 47.15 $55.27 $2,606.02 20.5 22 C 52 C+ 55 60 $1,355.13 $1,016.35 Parking lot. Epicormic shoots, close to pavement on 2 sides -118.73415 34.3124914 $210.00 $1,230.00 $1,450.00 x Y Not Calculated in 2018.
911
Tree ID Species 2024 DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Cross-
Sectional
Area (in^2)
Unit Cost Per
Sq. In. Basic Cost Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%) Form (%) Depreciated
Cost
Depreciated
Cost w/
Functional
Limitations
Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.
Installation
2024 Appraised
Value*
2018 Appraisal
Value To Be Removed To Be Relocated
To be Preserved
(Outside of
Project Limits)
Transplantable (Y
or N)
4543 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 9.25 Single 67.17 $55.27 $3,712.42 21.75 20 C 52 C+ 55 60 $1,930.46 $1,447.84 Parking lot. Branch dieback, surrounded
on 3 sides by pavement, drought
t d thi i
-118.7341 34.3124112 $210.00 $1,660.00 $4,240.00 x Y
4544 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 26.55 Multi-
Trunk 553.35 $55.27 $30,584.61 25.75 22 B 70 B+ 60 68 $21,409.23 $16,056.92 Parking lot. Crossed stems, epicormic shoots, minor branch dieback -118.73436 34.3124367 $210.00 $16,270.00 $30,800.00 x Y 4545 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 31.9 Multi-
Trunk 798.82 $55.27 $44,152.50 33.5 22 B 67 B+ 61 61 $29,582.18 $22,186.63 Parking lot. Small mammal burrows,
fungal issues on trunk, minor flagging,
d d b t 3 id
-118.73434 34.3124713 $210.00 $22,400.00 $53,000.00 x Y 4548 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 16.5 Single 213.72 $94.75 $20,250.00 32 48 B 77 A- 78 83 $15,592.50 $11,694.38 Parking lot. Claw marks, thickened bark in patches, adjacent to building -118.73459 34.3125315 $360.00 $12,050.00 $14,600.00 x N 4549 Strawberry tree
(Arbutus unedo) 19.25 Multi-
Trunk 290.89 $183.69 $53,432.51 18.75 14 B 66 B 61 58 $35,265.46 $22,922.55 Parking lot. Adjacent to building -118.73476 34.3125408 $384.00 $23,310.00 $2,910.00 x Y 4554 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 17.05 Multi-
Trunk 228.20 $55.27 $12,613.13 18.8 12 A 96 A 80 81 $12,108.60 $9,081.45 Parking lot. Minor flagging, dead
branches inside canopy, some wolf
b h DBH di d t
-118.73433 34.3122569 $210.00 $9,290.00 $12,800.00 x Y
4555 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 28.1 Multi-
Trunk 619.84 $55.27 $34,259.94 30.5 20 B 67 A 60 65 $22,954.16 $17,215.62 Parking lot. Previously misidentified as
coast live oak. Leaves slightly sparse,
i tl t DBH di d t
-118.73431 34.3122771 $378.00 $17,590.00 $22,500.00 x N 4556 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 43 Multi-
Trunk 1,451.47 $55.27 $80,225.21 35 18 A 96 A 80 80 $77,016.20 $57,762.15 Parking lot. Minimal dead branches -118.73427 34.3123188 $210.00 $57,970.00 $80,300.00 x Y 4557 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 17.5 Multi-
Trunk 240.41 $55.27 $13,287.71 25 15 A 96 A 81 80 $12,756.20 $9,567.15 Parking lot. Some areas of sparse leaves, roots exposed by burrowing mammals -118.73379 34.3123239 $210.00 $9,780.00 $20,500.00 x Y 4558 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 22.5 Multi-
Trunk 397.41 $55.27 $21,965.39 23.3 9 B 62 C 50 50 $13,618.54 $10,213.91 Parking lot. Old dead branches, lots of
new growth, asymmetric form. DBH
di d t i l i f t k
-118.73397 34.3122604 $210.00 $10,420.00 $6,500.00 x Y
4559 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 11.3 Single 100.24 $55.27 $5,540.27 30.5 15 A 93 A 70 60 $5,152.45 $3,864.34 Parking lot. Leaning, minor insect damage, branches touching ground -118.73415 34.3122415 $210.00 $4,070.00 $6,600.00 x N 4560 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 21.7 Multi-
Trunk 369.65 $55.27 $20,431.18 25.5 15 A 97 A 81 81 $19,818.24 $19,818.24 Tree is in good health. -118.73415 34.3120871 $210.00 $20,030.00 $20,000.00 x Y 4562 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 15.75 Multi-
Trunk 194.73 $55.27 $10,763.04 23.8 18 B 63 A 55 55 $6,780.72 $6,780.72 Insect damage, dieback -118.73377 34.3120625 $210.00 $6,990.00 $6,100.00 x N 4563 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 35.5 Multi-
Trunk 989.30 $55.27 $54,680.27 42.5 20 A 96 A 80 81 $52,493.06 $52,493.06 Minor flagging, dead branches in middle o -118.73371 34.311981 $210.00 $52,700.00 $45,500.00 x Y 4564 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 27 Multi-
Trunk 572.27 $55.27 $31,630.17 22.8 20 B 75 A- 70 70 $23,722.62 $17,791.97 Parking lot. Insect damage, oozing on trunk -118.73371 34.3120903 $210.00 $18,000.00 $30,400.00 x Y 4565 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 8 Single 50.24 $55.27 $2,776.86 17 9 B 67 B 61 61 $1,860.50 $1,395.37 Parking lot. Epicormic growth at base -118.73365 34.3121241 $210.00 $1,610.00 $2,610.00 x Y 4566 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 11.5 Multi-
Trunk 103.82 $55.27 $5,738.12 16 10 B 77 A 80 75 $4,418.35 $4,418.35 Twig dieback -118.73344 34.3121451 $210.00 $4,630.00 $8,000.00 x Y 4567 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 29.8 Multi-
Trunk 697.11 $55.27 $38,530.66 30.8 20 A 97 A 81 85 $37,374.74 $37,374.74 Minor twig dieback -118.73347 34.3121377 $210.00 $37,580.00 $39,000.00 x Y 4568 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 9.5 Single 70.85 $94.75 $6,712.81 27.8 20 B 61 D 41 41 $4,094.81 $4,094.81 Minor twig dieback, leaf fungal damage, f -118.73342 34.3120035 $360.00 $4,450.00 $5,100.00 x Y 4570 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 18.5 Multi-
Trunk 268.67 $55.27 $14,849.69 22 15 A 93 A 70 70 $13,810.21 $13,810.21 Minor asymmetry -118.7334 34.3121452 $210.00 $14,020.00 $14,500.00 x Y 4571 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 23.5 Multi-
Trunk 433.52 $55.27 $23,961.26 26.5 9.5 B 76 C 80 50 $18,210.56 $18,210.56 Minor dead branches -118.73384 34.3133677 $210.00 $18,420.00 $7,800.00 x Y 4572 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 30.85 Multi-
Trunk 747.10 $55.27 $41,293.74 38.9 18 A 98 A 82 81 $40,467.87 $30,350.90 Parking lot. Sapsucker damage,
burrowing mammals. DBH discrepancy
d t i l i f t k th t
-118.73353 34.3140206 $210.00 $30,560.00 $12,400.00 x Y 4576 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 16.6 Multi-
Trunk 216.31 $55.27 $11,956.12 14 8 B 65 B- 64 61 $7,771.48 $7,771.48 Several branches dying back -118.73346 34.312207 $210.00 $7,980.00 $7,900.00 x N 4577 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 27 Multi-
Trunk 572.27 $55.27 $31,630.17 32.8 11 A 96 A 80 80 $30,364.96 $30,364.96 Minimal dead branches within inner
canopy, some branches touching ground.
DBH di d t i l i f
-118.73434 34.312063 $210.00 $30,570.00 N/A x Y
4578 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 23.2 Multi-
Trunk 422.52 $55.27 $23,353.39 26.5 20 A 97 A 81 81 $22,652.79 $16,989.59 Parking lot. Minimal dead branches
within canopy. Was previously tree ID
#4553
-118.73445 34.3123304 $210.00 $17,200.00 $18,600.00 x N 4579 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 5 Single 19.63 $55.27 $1,084.71 14 10 D 24 C- 21 35 $260.33 $195.25 Parking lot. Newly identified tree in
2024. Previous DBH fell below threshold
f t ti V l d d
-118.73416 34.3122317 $210.00 $410.00 N/A x N
4580 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 9.1 Single 65.01 $94.75 $6,159.42 24 24 B 77 B+ 81 78 $4,742.75 $4,742.75 Minor fungal leaf issues. Was previously tree ID #4570 -118.73341 34.3119454 $360.00 $5,100.00 $5,100.00 x Y 4597 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 41.45 Multi-
Trunk 1,348.71 $90.01 $121,403.11 28.4 10 D 15 F 4 25 $18,210.47 $18,210.47 Branch dieback, leaf dieback from
fungus, sparse canopy, resprout from
fi W i l t ID #4700
-118.72263 34.3096852 $342.00 $18,550.00 $14,700.00 x N 4598 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 29.7 Multi-
Trunk 692.44 $55.27 $38,272.50 35 12 C 46 C 41 21 $17,605.35 $17,605.35 Newly identified tree in 2024. Tree
previously fell outside grading limits.
G i hill id b b h
-118.72012 34.3063328 $210.00 $17,820.00 N/A x N
4599 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 44.7 Multi-
Trunk 1,568.50 $55.27 $86,693.99 38.3 16 B 62 C 50 30 $53,750.27 $53,750.27 Newly identified tree in 2024. Tree
previously fell outside grading limits.
G i /d i hill id t d
-118.7201 34.3062325 $210.00 $53,960.00 N/A x N
4600 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 19.8 Single 307.75 $55.27 $17,010.00 27.2 18 B 64 C+ 45 61 $10,886.40 $10,886.40 Newly identified tree in 2024. Tree
previously fell outside grading limits.
I t d t i t k l
-118.72048 34.306242 $210.00 $11,100.00 N/A x Y
4631 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 34 Multi-
Trunk 907.46 $94.75 $85,983.47 27.7 35 C 35 D 22 25 $30,094.21 $30,094.21 Thickened bark at base, some dead
branches, very narrow canopy, mistletoe
t
-118.72109 34.3059846 $360.00 $30,450.00 $48,300.00 x N 4632 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 0 N/A 0.00 $94.75 $0.00 N/A N/A F 0 N/A 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 Tree is dead. In 2018 DBH was 24 inches
and Health was C. Tree health declined
d d d i 2024
-118.72097 34.3060174 $0.00 $0.00 $19,500.00 x N
4633 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 29.5 Multi-
Trunk 683.15 $94.75 $64,729.34 32 34 B 75 B 75 65 $48,547.00 $48,547.00 Thin canopy, drought stress, shrubby understory -118.72102 34.3058913 $360.00 $48,910.00 $26,500.00 x N 4634 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 28.7 Single 646.60 $55.27 $35,738.62 41.6 30 B 71 B 62 70 $25,374.42 $25,374.42 Fungal issues, crossing branches. DBH
discrepancy due to exclusion of trunks
th t d d
-118.72098 34.3058904 $210.00 $25,580.00 $103,800.00 x N 4635 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 27.6 Multi-
Trunk 597.98 $55.27 $33,051.57 36 18 C 51 D+ 61 45 $16,856.30 $16,856.30 Minor oozing, insect damage, thin
canopy impacted by crowding from #
4634 d i b h
-118.72095 34.3057973 $210.00 $17,070.00 $21,200.00 x N 4636 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 24 Multi-
Trunk 452.16 $55.27 $24,991.74 42 19 B 63 C 55 58 $15,744.79 $15,744.79 Wood rat scat on floor, insect damage,
minor fungal issues, thin canopy, dying
b h ti f li ht DBH
-118.72087 34.3058274 $210.00 $15,950.00 $36,600.00 x N 4637 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 12.75 Single 127.61 $55.27 $7,053.33 35.5 30 B 68 B 65 60 $4,796.27 $4,796.27 Slight lean, area used for parking,
exposed roots, soil compaction &
th i
-118.72071 34.3057497 $210.00 $5,010.00 $4,200.00 x Y
4638 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 20.8 Single 339.62 $55.27 $18,771.57 50.25 25 B 73 B 70 65 $13,703.25 $13,703.25 Area under trees compacted from
parked cars, exposed roots, soil
th i dj t t d
-118.72064 34.3057211 $210.00 $13,910.00 $10,000.00 x Y 4640 Valley oak (Quercus
lobata) 44 Single 1,519.76 $102.65 $156,000.00 47.5 35 D 15 D 15 35 $23,400.00 $23,400.00 Burl, broken branches, 2 larger limbs
remain but others have died and broken
ff ld fi d
-118.72035 34.3063696 $390.00 $23,790.00 $29,500.00 x N 4641 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 19 Single 283.39 $55.27 $15,663.22 35.4 20 A 98 A 87 85 $15,349.96 $15,349.96 Minor branch dieback in inner canopy -118.72037 34.3063825 $210.00 $15,560.00 $8,700.00 x Y 4642 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 23.9 Multi-
Trunk 448.40 $90.01 $40,362.36 30.3 10 D 22 D 21 21 $8,879.72 $8,879.72 Fire damage, dead branches, insect
damage, sparse foliage with fungus. DBH
di d t i l i f t k
-118.72255 34.3097067 $342.00 $9,220.00 $5,400.00 x N
4643 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 34.3 Multi-
Trunk 923.54 $90.01 $83,132.14 31.5 11 D 28 D 40 23 $23,277.00 $23,277.00 Many dead branches, old fire damage,
sparse foliage with fungus, insect
d
-118.72229 34.3097672 $342.00 $23,620.00 $10,600.00 x N 4644 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 35.8 Multi-
Trunk 1,006.09 $90.01 $90,562.17 32.5 12 D 25 D 25 40 $22,640.54 $22,640.54 Large woodrat nest at base, old fire
damage, insect damage, dead and
b k b h f li ith
-118.72222 34.3110102 $342.00 $22,980.00 $11,700.00 x N 4645 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 39.5 Multi-
Trunk 1,224.80 $90.01 $110,249.07 32.3 10 D 25 D 25 40 $27,562.27 $27,562.27 Old fire damage, dead branches, sparse
foliage with fungus. DBH discrepancy
d t l i f t k th t
-118.72229 34.3096437 $342.00 $27,900.00 $1,310.00 x N
4657 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 32.6 Multi-
Trunk 834.27 $94.75 $79,048.26 43 38 B 62 C+ 50 60 $49,009.92 $49,009.92 Bore holes from insects, fungal issues on leaves -118.72097 34.3060718 $360.00 $49,370.00 $26,500.00 x N 912
Tree ID Species 2024 DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Cross-
Sectional
Area (in^2)
Unit Cost Per
Sq. In. Basic Cost Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%) Form (%) Depreciated
Cost
Depreciated
Cost w/
Functional
Limitations
Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.
Installation
2024 Appraised
Value*
2018 Appraisal
Value To Be Removed To Be Relocated
To be Preserved
(Outside of
Project Limits)
Transplantable (Y
or N)
4664 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 24.75 Multi-
Trunk 480.86 $94.75 $45,562.50 24 20 C 57 B 70 75 $25,970.63 $25,970.63 A few dead branches, signs of Anthracnose -118.72107 34.3061501 $360.00 $26,330.00 $20,100.00 x Y 4850 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 5.6 Single 24.62 $55.27 $1,360.66 12.6 8.4 C 51 C- 41 61 $693.94 $520.45 Parking lot. Thin canopy, dying branches,
insect damage, sparse & sickly foliage,
t ti l f l i f ti T
-118.73375 34.3132632 $210.00 $730.00 N/A x N
4851 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 10.2 Single 81.67 $55.27 $4,514.13 27.3 14 C 51 C 50 50 $2,302.21 $1,726.66 Parking lot. Yellowing leaves, thin
canopy, 3 sides surrounded by concrete.
W i l t ID #4512
-118.73411 34.3132367 $210.00 $1,940.00 $3,670.00 x Y
4852 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 16.75 Single 220.24 $94.75 $20,868.29 40.25 42 A 96 A 80 80 $20,033.55 $20,033.55 Past pruning created minor asymmetry
to keep away from building, minimal
i t d W i l t ID
-118.7338 34.3143032 $360.00 $20,390.00 $8,400.00 x Y
4854 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 25.5 Single 510.45 $55.27 $28,213.33 46.5 26 C 53 C 62 58 $14,953.06 $14,953.06 Crossing branches, twig dieback
(particularly in the interior canopy), area
d t k d d ht t ld
-118.7207 34.3055285 $210.00 $15,160.00 N/A x N
4855 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 23 Single 415.27 $55.27 $22,952.48 50.25 32 B 76 B+ 70 80 $17,443.88 $17,443.88 minor flagging, area used to park under, adjacent to road, exposed roots -118.72061 34.3054998 $210.00 $17,650.00 N/A x Y 4856 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 21.1 Single 349.49 $55.27 $19,316.96 39 28 B 68 C+ 68 65 $13,135.53 $13,135.53 Minor staining on some upper branches,
area used to park under, adjacent to
d
-118.72062 34.3054089 $210.00 $13,350.00 N/A x N
4857 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 19.5 Multi-
Trunk 298.50 $55.27 $16,498.45 24 35 B 66 C 60 58 $10,888.98 $10,888.98 Trunk fissure, crossing branches, close
competition with walnut, adjacent to
d
-118.72067 34.3027827 $210.00 $11,100.00 N/A x N
4858 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 43.7 Multi-
Trunk 1,499.11 $90.01 $134,940.90 25 18 B 72 C 50 60 $97,157.45 $97,157.45 Large cable running through trunk, many
dead stems from base, crossing
b h d i li b i t d
-118.72038 34.3025993 $342.00 $97,500.00 N/A x N
4859 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 10.75 Multi-
Trunk 90.72 $90.01 $8,165.78 17 11 C 57 D 40 42 $4,654.49 $4,654.49 leaning, growing along the ground,
shaded by other walnut, cut branches,
dj t t di t ib ti l th
-118.72037 34.3026161 $342.00 $5,000.00 N/A x N
4860 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 22.75 Multi-
Trunk 406.29 $55.27 $22,456.22 34 16 C 49 D 38 42 $11,003.55 $11,003.55 Growing along ground, major diseased
limb, shaded by other oak, on a slope,
d t t
-118.72023 34.3020506 $210.00 $11,210.00 N/A x N
4861 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 31.95 Multi-
Trunk 801.33 $55.27 $44,291.02 42 18 B 76 B- 82 78 $33,661.17 $33,661.17 Dead branches on the interior, minor flagging, drought stress -118.72011 34.3024585 $210.00 $33,870.00 N/A x Y 4862 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 22.5 Multi-
Trunk 397.41 $90.01 $35,770.54 31 16 B 73 B 75 62 $26,112.49 $26,112.49 Small mammal burrows underneath
trunk, some interior branch dieback,
h b i th d t dj t t
-118.72027 34.3029081 $342.00 $26,450.00 N/A x Y
4863 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 54.1 Single 2,297.55 $55.27 $126,989.69 68.25 45 C 53 C 55 60 $67,304.54 $67,304.54 Loss of major limb, other dead branches,
crossing stems, cavity in trunk, insect
d f l i
-118.72023 34.3030721 $210.00 $67,510.00 N/A x N
4864 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 23.75 Multi-
Trunk 442.79 $55.27 $24,473.79 19.25 18 C 53 C+ 62 58 $12,971.11 $9,728.33 Parking lot. Ants present, interior branch
dieback, canker at base of trunk, insect
d W i l t ID #4528
-118.73462 34.3127314 $210.00 $9,940.00 $17,000.00 x Y
4865 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 16.5 Multi-
Trunk 213.72 $55.27 $11,812.50 19.25 13 C 53 B- 45 60 $6,260.63 $4,695.47 Parking lot. Some fissures and spreading
back on several stems, crossing limbs.
N t i l t d d i
-118.7346 34.3128049 $210.00 $4,910.00 N/A x Y
4866 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 12.3 Single 118.76 $94.75 $11,252.98 35 50 A 97 A 82 81 $10,915.39 $10,915.39 Ants present, shrubs at base of trunk
causing thickened bark on one side. Was
i l t ID #4552
-118.73482 34.3126576 $360.00 $11,280.00 $6,100.00 x Y
4867 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 16.5 Single 213.72 $94.75 $20,250.00 31.35 45 B 65 C 62 50 $13,162.50 $8,555.63 Parking lot. Growing adjacent to building,
leaning, near culvert, epicormic shoots,
thi k d b k W i l t ID
-118.73493 34.3126502 $360.00 $8,920.00 $8,700.00 x N
4868 Strawberry tree
(Arbutus unedo) 16.5 Multi-
Trunk 213.72 $183.69 $39,256.54 19.5 14 A 95 A- 78 65 $37,293.71 $27,970.29 Parking lot. Adjacent to building -118.73467 34.3125408 $384.00 $28,350.00 N/A x Y 4869 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 20.5 Multi-
Trunk 329.90 $55.27 $18,233.99 30.75 18 B 67 B 60 70 $12,216.77 $9,162.58 Parking lot. Minor flagging, major trunk le -118.73393 34.3124719 $210.00 $9,370.00 $11,100.00 x N 4870 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 4.5 Multi-
Trunk 15.90 $55.27 $878.62 16.75 14 B 61 B- 45 41 $535.96 $401.97 Parking lot. Crossed branches, competing -118.7338 34.3124417 $210.00 $610.00 N/A x Y $2,618,540.00
Updated V4 NEW appraisal values $1,226,900.00 $929,710.00 $461,930.00 2024 $737,060.00 2018
$1,198,990.00 Total preserved
Total all Trees $3,355,600.00
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
APPENDIX I
TRANSPORTATION MEMORANDUM
923
5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Office: 760.476.9193 | Fax: 760.476.9198
M E M O R A N D U M
To:
Rick Nelson, Newport Pacific Land Company
From: Jordan Gray, PE TE, Michael Baker International
Date: November 13, 2025
Subject: Lost Canyons 180 Lots Transfer Project – Transportation
Michael Baker International (Michael Baker), formerly RBF Consulting, has completed the traffic analysis of the proposed density transfer of 180 dwelling units for the Lost Canyons Project (the proposed project) within the Whiteface Specific Plan in the City of Simi Valley (City). A similar assessment was conducted for the 32 lot transfer associated with FM 5734-1 in April of 2024. The next phase of the entitlement and the focus of this assessment would relocate the 180 dwelling units from the Dry and Tapo Canyon areas to the former golf course north of Lost Canyon Drive. The relocation of units results in a zero-sum net change and the total number of dwelling units within the Specific Plan area remains at 364 units under the proposed project.
The results of this review concluded that there are no new traffic related impacts associated with the proposed relocation of the 180 dwelling units.
As outlined in this memorandum, this traffic analysis tiers off the work done as part of the certified 2010 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) completed for the Whiteface Specific Plan Amendment 6: Lost Canyons. As such, a review of the transportation related impacts utilize the same Level-of-Service (LOS) based criteria as the 2010 EIR and is not required to consider Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). A VMT analysis is only applicable to projects evaluated under CEQA after July 1, 2020 (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3(c)). Moreover, if a document meets the content requirements in effect when released for public review, “the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15007(c).) This 180-unit transfer need only be reviewed under the LOS standard that applied at the time that the City certified the 2010 EIR.
BACKGROUND
In 2007, the original Lost Canyons Project Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed as part of the CEQA documentation for the proposed project. Subsequently, a Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum (Addendum) was conducted in 2010 to assess minor modifications to the project at that time.
The approved project analyzed in the 2010 EIR included various land uses, including a mix of residential types, natural open space, a multi-purpose trail system, and an area for the development of a golf course and related commercial recreational amenities. Specifically, the following land uses were approved:
• 364 single-family dwelling units (located within a private gated community) • Private 18-hole golf course (located within a private gated community) 924
Lost Canyons 180 Lot Transfer Project
Tra
ffic Analysis 2
• Private neighborhood park (located within a private gated community) • Private 25 Golf Course Member Suite (located within a private gated community) • Private approximately 6,000 square-foot service-oriented commercial use (located within a private gated community)
• Public trail head with public parking lot
While the proposed Lost Canyons project consists of multiple components and various land uses, as documented in the 2007 TIA and referenced in the 2010 EIR , only the residential component of the project (364 single-family dwelling units) is forecast to generate net added project related trips.
The 2010 TIA Addendum updated the traffic analysis with updated traffic count data and updated intersection geometry which showed that intersection operations were forecast to result in similar acceptable level of service operations (LOS C or better) and no new traffic impacts would occur with the updated 2009 traffic count data. The 2010 TIA Addendum concluded that no traffic mitigation measures were required as a result of the updated counts and modified intersection geometry. These results were documented and incorporated into the certified 2010 EIR.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Recent modifications to the Lost Canyons development would internally relocate 180 dwelling units from Dry Canyon and Tapo Canyon, south of Lost Canyons Drive, to the Clubcore area, north of Lost Canyons Drive. This reflects a zero-sum net change in the total number of dwelling units and is an equal transfer of units within the overall tentative tract map area. The overall total dwelling units for the entire project remains at 364 single-family dwelling units for the Lost Canyons Project. Ultimately, 362 lots are planned north of Lost Canyons Drive and 2 lots south of Lost Canyons Drive. One lot in Dry Canyon and another lot is in Tapo Canyon South, both accessed on the southern property boundary from existing easements.
Attachment A contains the conceptual site plan.
APPROACH & METHODOLOGY
With the relocation of the 180 residential units, it is likely that the corresponding redistribution of traffic would change as well as the allocation of project related trips to the east and west via Erringer Road and Tapo Canyon Road. This transportation assessment evaluates the overall trip redistribution compared to the previous traffic studies. In order to provide a direct comparison to the previous 2007 and 2010 analysis, this analysis considers the same total trip generation associated with all 364 dwelling units, however the project trip distribution has been modified and is discussed in subsequent sections.
As part of this updated analysis, the study intersection listed below were analyzed. The study intersection identification numbers below are consistent with the TIA and addendum. Exhibit 1 shows the study intersections. All exhibits are included in Attachment B at the end of this document.
1. Erringer Road & Lost Canyons Drive
2. Erringer Road & Falcon Street
3. Erringer Road & Alamo Street
4. Erringer Road & SR-118 WB Ramps/Simi
Town Center Way
5. Erringer Road & SR-118 EB Ramps
11. Lost Canyons Golf Club & Lost Canyons
Drive
12. Tapo Canyon Road & Lost Canyons Drive
13. Tapo Canyon Road & Alamo Street
14. Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 WB Ramps
15. Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 EB Ramps
16. "A" Street & Lost Canyons Drive
925
5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Office: 760.476.9193 | Fax: 760.476.9198
It should be noted that, as part of this analysis, the baseline “Without Project” scenarios remain unc
hanged from the original 2007 TIA and 2010 Addendum. Also, consistent with the TIA and addendum, the analysis outlined in this memorandum focuses on the following two “With Project” study scenarios:
• Existing With Project Conditions (Condition 2)
• Cumulative With Project Conditions (Condition 4)
Similarly, consistent with previous analysis efforts, the assessment outline in this memorandum was conducted using the City of Simi Valley’s Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Reports dated July 2003. As outlined in the City’s guidelines, Level of Service (LOS) analysis should be conducted using Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology to calculate the volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C). This methodology describes the operation of an intersection using a range of LOS from LOS A to LOS F. Table 1 summarizes the corresponding LOS thresholds. The City’s goal for peak hour intersection operations is LOS C or better.
Table 1: LOS and V/C Thresholds
LOS Volume to Capacity
A 0.00 to 0.60
B 0.61 to 0.70
C 0.71 to 0.80
D 0.81 to 0.90
E 0.91 to 1.00
F Exceeds 1.00
Source: Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Reports (City of Simi Valley, July 2003)
TRI
P GENERATION
To maintain consistency with the TIA and addendum, the same project trip generation estimates were used for the revised analysis. Table 2 summarizes the project trip generation documented in the 2007 TIA.
Table 2: Forecast Net Trip Generation of Proposed Project Land Use AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily
Trips In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Project
(364 single-family dwelling
units)
69 204 273 233 135 368 3,483
Displaced Existing Land Use
(18-hole golf course) -32 -8 -40 -22 -28 -50 -643
Total Net Project Trip
Generation 37 196 233 211 107 318 2,840
Source: Lost Canyons Project Traffic Impact Analysis (RBF, October 2007)
TRI
P DISTRIBUTION
As discussed previously, the relocation of the 180 lots changes the trip distribution assumed in the 2007 TIA and addendum analyses. Based on the new location of the 180 lots, the intersection of “B” Street and Lost Canyons Drive previously included in 2007 TIA and 2010 addendum would be eliminated. Primary access to the site would be provided by two driveways: Lost Canyons Golf Club & Lost Canyons Drive and 926
Lost Canyons 180 Lot Transfer Project
Tra
ffic Analysis 4
"A" Street & Lost Canyons Drive. It should be noted that the secondary driveway towards the western limits of the project site will serve as an emergency vehicle access driveway only. As such, all project traffic was assumed to enter and exit the site via the two primary driveways.
Additionally, two of the 364 dwelling units are proposed to be accessed on the southern property boundary with existing easements. However, the previous TIA assumed trips associated with these two remote lots were loaded to the main project driveway off Lost Canyons Drive, which provides a conservative worst-case conditions of the operations at the project driveways. This updated analysis follows this same assumption.
Revised trip distributions for the entire 364-dwelling units were developed based on the location of the relocated lots and assigned to the project driveways accordingly. Generally, the redistribution of trips associated with the relocated lots assigns more trips to the west. Therefore, more traffic is anticipated to use Erringer Road to access the site.
Exhibit 2 shows the revised trip distribution under the existing roadway network and Exhibit 3 shows the revised trip distribution under the future roadway network. Under the future roadway condition, project trips were distributed west on Falcon Street and Lost Canyons Drive, following similar roadway extension assumptions used in the 2007 TIA. Exhibits 4 and 5 show the project trip assignment for the existing and future roadway networks, respectively.
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The Existing with Project (Condition 2) traffic volumes were developed by adding all project related trips to the existing traffic volumes, including the redistributed trips associated with the 180-lot transfer. The existing traffic volumes were sourced from Condition 1 of the 2010 addendum which included updated traffic count data. Exhibit 6 shows the updated Condition 2 traffic volumes.
Similarly, the Cumulative With Project (Condition 4) traffic volumes were developed by adding all project related trips to the cumulative traffic volumes. The cumulative traffic volumes were sourced from Condition 3 of the 2007 TIA which contained the City Traffic Model Cumulative Traffic Without Proposed Project. According to the 2010 addendum, all of the cumulative buildout volume forecasts remained unchanged as part of that analysis, thus the 2007 TIA contains the latest applicable forecasts. Exhibit 7 shows the updated Condition 4 traffic volumes with the future roadway network after adding project related trips to the cumulative traffic volumes (Condition 3). Attachments C and D contain volume excepts from the 2007 TIA and 2010 addendum.
ICU ANALYSIS
The ICU results of each condition with the revised trip distributions due to the proposed relocation are listed in Tables 3 and 4. As shown, under both the Existing With Project (Condition 2) and Cumulative With Project (Condition 4) study scenarios, all intersections are projected to operate at LOS C or better, in accordance with City’s intersection LOS goal. Tables 5 and 6 compare the traffic analysis results of each condition to the 2010 addendum results. As expected, the comparisons show a slight increase in utilization at locations along Erringer Road to the west due to the revised trip distributions. However, no new traffic impacts are identified due to the proposed dwelling unit relocation. As such, no new traffic mitigation measures are required. Attachment E contains the detailed analysis worksheets.
927
Lost Canyons 180 Lot Transfer Project
Tra
ffic Analysis 5
Table 3: AM/PM ICU Results – Condition 2
ID Study Intersection
Existing With Project
(Condition 2)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
1 Erringer Road & Lost Canyons Drive 0.13 A 0.18 A
2 Erringer Road & Falcon Street 0.16 A 0.13 A
3 Erringer Road & Alamo Street 0.41 A 0.43 A
4 Erringer Road & SR-118 WB Ramps/Simi
Town Center Way 0.35 A 0.50 A
5 Erringer Road & SR-118 EB Ramps 0.32 A 0.50 A
11 Lost Canyons Golf Club & Lost Canyons Drive 0.16 A 0.16 A 12 Tapo Canyon Road & Lost Canyons Drive 0.15 A 0.19 A
13 Tapo Canyon Road & Alamo Street 0.47 A 0.45 A
14 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 WB Ramps 0.57 A 0.63 B
15 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 EB Ramps 0.46 A 0.54 A
16 "A" Street & Lost Canyons Drive 0.14 A 0.14 A
Table 4 : AM/PM ICU Results – Condition 4
ID Study Intersection
Cumulative With Project
(Condition 4)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
1 Erringer Road & Lost Canyons Drive 0.47 A 0.39 A
2 Erringer Road & Falcon Street 0.34 A 0.31 A
3 Erringer Road & Alamo Street 0.69 B 0.71 C
4 Erringer Road & SR-118 WB Ramps/Simi
Town Center Way 0.60 A 0.65 B
5 Erringer Road & SR-118 EB Ramps 0.50 C 0.59 A
11 Lost Canyons Golf Club & Lost Canyons Drive 0.24 A 0.35 A 12 Tapo Canyon Road & Lost Canyons Drive 0.23 A 0.36 A
13 Tapo Canyon Road & Alamo Street 0.69 B 0.79 C
14 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 WB Ramps 0.67 B 0.80 C
15 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 EB Ramps 0.68 B 0.71 C
16 "A" Street & Lost Canyons Drive 0.18 A 0.32 A
928
Lost Canyons 180 Lot Transfer Project
Tra
ffic Analysis 6
Table 5: ICU Comparison – Condition 2
ID Study Intersection
2010 Addendum Results 180 Lot Transfer Analysis Results Existing With Project (Condition 2) Existing With Project (Condition 2) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Δ V/C V/C LOS Δ V/C
1 Erringer Road & Lost Canyons Drive 0.08 A 0.11 A 0.13 A 0.05 0.18 A 0.07 2 Erringer Road & Falcon Street 0.14 A 0.11 A 0.16 A 0.02 0.13 A 0.02 3 Erringer Road & Alamo Street 0.29 A 0.30 A 0.41 A 0.12 0.43 A 0.13 4 Erringer Road & SR-118 WB Ramps/Simi
Town Center Way 0.32 A 0.42 A 0.35 A 0.03 0.50 A 0.08 5 Erringer Road & SR-118 EB Ramps 0.31 A 0.47 A 0.32 A 0.01 0.50 A 0.03 11 Lost Canyons Golf Club & Lost Canyons
Drive 0.12 A 0.19 A 0.16 A 0.04 0.16 A -0.03
12 Tapo Canyon Road & Lost Canyons Drive 0.14 A 0.17 A 0.15 A 0.01 0.19 A 0.02 13 Tapo Canyon Road & Alamo Street 0.41 A 0.45 A 0.47 A 0.06 0.45 A 0.00 14 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 WB Ramps 0.47 A 0.50 A 0.57 A 0.1 0.63 B 0.13 15 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 EB Ramps 0.47 A 0.57 A 0.46 A -0.01 0.54 A -0.03 16 "A" Street & Lost Canyons Drive Intersection not assessed in 2010 Addendum 0.14 A -- 0.14 A --
Table 6: ICU Comparison – Condition 4
ID Study Intersection
2010 Addendum Results 180 Lot Transfer Analysis Results Cumulative With Project
(Condition 4) Cumulative With Project (Condition 4)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Δ V/C V/C LOS Δ V/C
1 Erringer Road & Lost Canyons Drive 0.46 A 0.28 A 0.47 A 0.01 0.39 A 0.11 2 Erringer Road & Falcon Street 0.34 A 0.30 A 0.34 A 0.00 0.31 A 0.01 3 Erringer Road & Alamo Street 0.49 A 0.53 A 0.69 B 0.20 0.71 C 0.18 4 Erringer Road & SR-118 WB Ramps/Simi
Town Center Way 0.53 A 0.61 B 0.60 A 0.07 0.65 B 0.04 5 Erringer Road & SR-118 EB Ramps 0.48 A 0.59 A 0.50 C 0.02 0.59 A 0.00 11 Lost Canyons Golf Club & Lost Canyons
Drive 0.18 A 0.24 A 0.24 A 0.06 0.35 A 0.11
12 Tapo Canyon Road & Lost Canyons Drive 0.23 A 0.31 A 0.23 A 0.00 0.36 A 0.05 13 Tapo Canyon Road & Alamo Street 0.64 B 0.67 B 0.69 B 0.05 0.79 C 0.12 14 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 WB Ramps 0.61 B 0.70 B 0.67 B 0.06 0.80 C 0.10 15 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 EB Ramps 0.68 B 0.75 C 0.68 B 0.00 0.71 C -0.04 16 "A" Street & Lost Canyons Drive Intersection not assessed in 2010 Addendum 0.18 A -- 0.32 A --
929
Lost Canyons 180 Lot Transfer Project
Tra
ffic Analysis 7
CONCLUSION
This traffic analysis considers the proposed density transfer of 180 dwelling units within the Whiteface Specific Plan Area. This assessment follows the same methodology as the original 2007 TIA as well as the 2010 Addendum. As discussed, the relocation of units results in a zero-sum net change and the total number of dwelling units within the Specific Plan area remains at 364 units.
As discussed previously, this analysis only need consider potential transportation related impacts under CEQA using LOS thresholds and is not required to evaluate VMT.
After reviewing these proposed modifications this analysis shows that there are no new transportation related impacts and no traffic mitigation measures are required.
930
Attachment A -
Conc
eptual Site Plan
931
Not to Scale
H:\PDATA\200855_Lost Canyon Traffic\Traffic AWR 180 Lots\9_ Exhibits October 2024
Concept Illustrative
Source: PLACEWORKS, August 16, 2024
Lost Canyons
Golf Club
"A" Street
932
Attac
hment B -
Exhibits
933
Not to Scale
H:\PDATA\200855_Lost Canyon Traffic\Traffic AWR 180 Lots\9_ Exhibits October 2024
118
Alamo St
Simi Town Center Way
Lost Canyon Dr
Erringer Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
Falcon St
Project Site
Lost Canyons
Golf Club “A” St
Exhibit 1
Study Intersection Locations
1 3
2 4
5 11
12 13
14 15
16 Legend
Project Site
(Approximate)
Existing Roadway
Future Driveway
Study Intersection
Future Intersection
#
#
934
Not to Scale
H:\PDATA\200855_Lost Canyon Traffic\Traffic AWR 180 Lots\9_ Exhibits October 2024
Exhibit 2
Project Trip Distribution - Existing Roadway Network
Project Site (Approximate)
Study Intersection
Future Intersection
Existing Roadway
Inbound Distribution
Outbound Distribution
Project Distribution
Legend
#
#
##%
38%
38%
38%
38%
1%
52%
13%
8%
7%
1%
31%
38%
38%
38%
5% 39%
7%
30%
38%
8%
5% 5%
5%
52%
5%
62%
62% 11%
43%
43%
11%
43%
19%
43%
27%
11% 27%11%
19%
6%
46%
38%
38%
38%
7%
1%
30%
38%
31%
52%
5%5%
8%
39%13%
5%
62%
62%
30%
70%
Erringer Rd
Lost Canyons Dr
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Falcon St
SR-118
WB Ramps SR-118 EB Ramps
Tapo Canyon Rd
Alamo St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
“A” St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Lost Canyons
Golf Club
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
SR-118
WB Ramps
Alamo St Simi Town
CTR WY
Erringer Rd
SR-118 EB Ramps
13 1
3 5 11
1412 15
2 4
16 935
Not to Scale
H:\PDATA\200855_Lost Canyon Traffic\Traffic AWR 180 Lots\9_ Exhibits October 2024
Exhibit 3
Project Trip Distribution - Future Roadway Network
Project Site (Approximate)
Study Intersection
Future Intersection
Existing Roadway
Inbound Distribution
Outbound Distribution
Project Distribution
Legend
#
#
##%
9%
12%
9%
9%
9%
52%
13%
8% 21%
17%
21%
5%
39%
17%
38%
8%
5% 5%
12%
9%
5%
52%
5%
62%
9%
43%
11%
43%
19%
43%
11%
43%
27%
11% 27%11%
19%
6%
46%
62%
21%
17%
12%
9%
9%
9%
52%
5%5%
8%
39%13%
5%
62%
62%
30%
70%
Erringer Rd
Lost Canyons Dr
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Falcon St
SR-118
WB Ramps SR-118 EB Ramps
Tapo Canyon Rd
Alamo St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
“A” St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Lost Canyons
Golf Club
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
SR-118
WB Ramps
Alamo St Simi Town
CTR WY
Erringer Rd
SR-118 EB Ramps
13 1
3 5 11
1412 15
2 4
16 936
Not to Scale
H:\PDATA\200855_Lost Canyon Traffic\Traffic AWR 180 Lots\9_ Exhibits October 2024
Exhibit 4
Project Trip Assignment - Existing Roadway Network
Project Site (Approximate)
Study Intersection
Future Intersection
Existing Roadway
Future Project Driveway
AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes
Legend
#
#
## / ## 121 / 66
14 / 80
75 / 41
14 / 80
75 / 41
0 / 2
19 / 109
5 / 27
3 / 17
14 / 8
2 / 1
11/ 65
74 / 41
14 / 80
16 / 91
22 / 12
75 / 41
84 / 46
2 / 11 14 / 82
3 / 15
11 / 63
74 / 41
16 / 9
11 / 6
90 / 50
2 / 11 2 / 10
10 / 57
4 / 23 53 / 29
7 / 40
16 / 91
37 / 20
4 / 23
84 / 46 22 / 12
10 / 5
101 / 56
10 / 5
23 / 131
Erringer Rd
Lost Canyons Dr
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Falcon St
SR-118
WB Ramps SR-118 EB Ramps
Tapo Canyon Rd
Alamo St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
“A” St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Lost Canyons
Golf Club
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
SR-118
WB Ramps
Alamo St Simi Town
CTR WY
Erringer Rd
SR-118 EB Ramps
13 1
3 5 11
1412 15
2 4
16 937
Not to Scale
H:\PDATA\200855_Lost Canyon Traffic\Traffic AWR 180 Lots\9_ Exhibits October 2024
Exhibit 5
Project Trip Assignment - Future Roadway Network
Project Site (Approximate)
Study Intersection
Future Intersection
Existing Roadway
Future Project Driveway
AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes
Legend
#
#
## / ##
3 / 19
24 / 13
18 / 10
3 / 19
18 / 10
19 / 109
5 / 27
7 / 44
33 / 18
42 / 23
2 / 11
14 / 82
7 / 36
2 / 11
4 / 25
3 / 19
10 / 5
101 / 56
10 / 5
23 / 131
18 / 10
16 / 91
22 / 12
84 / 46
10 / 57
4 / 23
53 / 29
11 / 6
90 / 50
121 / 66
3 / 17
74 / 41
16 / 9
2 / 10
7 / 40
16 / 91
37 / 20
4 / 23
84 / 46 22 / 12
Erringer Rd
Lost Canyons Dr
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Falcon St
SR-118
WB Ramps SR-118 EB Ramps
Tapo Canyon Rd
Alamo St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
“A” St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Lost Canyons
Golf Club
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
SR-118
WB Ramps
Alamo St Simi Town
CTR WY
Erringer Rd
SR-118 EB Ramps
13 1
3 5 11
1412 15
2 4
16 938
Not to Scale
H:\PDATA\200855_Lost Canyon Traffic\Traffic AWR 180 Lots\9_ Exhibits November 2025
Exhibit 6
Condition 2 Peak Hour Volumes (Existing + Project)
Project Site (Approximate)
Study Intersection
Future Intersection
Existing Roadway
Future Project Driveway
AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes
Legend
#
#
## / ##
6 / 9
232 / 445
1 / 2
536 / 226
16 / 33
156 / 397
259 / 484
1178 / 1087
0 / 2
0 / 0
254 / 132
4 / 1
28 / 7
42 / 134
104 / 318
80 / 305
3 / 2
120 / 195
88 / 124
603 / 484
61 / 64
83 / 65
1 / 8
533 / 403
45 / 110
73 / 189
374 / 627
19 / 17
1 / 0
19 / 13 1 / 2
17 / 33
112 / 249
92 / 215
319 / 632
331 / 148
54 / 48
372 / 325
316 / 240
264 / 396
28 / 59
660 / 561
220 / 224
391 / 687
150 / 266
71 / 132
522 / 810
375 / 303
0 / 2
27 / 31
58 / 122
882 / 508
41 / 7
0 / 5
404 / 208
150 / 46
221 / 181
841 / 1117
11 / 21
340 / 474
7 / 7
322 / 383
113 / 134
298 / 513
237 / 276
16 / 91
55 / 72
84 / 46
10 / 57
59 / 66
53 / 29
2 / 3
15 / 9
0 / 2
177 / 107
15 / 15
106 / 153
48 / 22
1086 / 987
1086 / 1257
10 / 36
386 / 287
985 / 985
7 / 40
49 / 151
37 / 20
4 / 23
139 / 89
22 / 12
56 / 189
31 / 22
Erringer Rd
Lost Canyons Dr
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Falcon St
SR-118
WB Ramps SR-118 EB Ramps
Tapo Canyon Rd
Alamo St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
“A” St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Lost Canyons
Golf Club
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
SR-118
WB Ramps
Alamo St Simi Town
CTR WY
Erringer Rd
SR-118 EB Ramps
13 1
3 5 11
1412 15
2 4
16 939
Not to Scale
H:\PDATA\200855_Lost Canyon Traffic\Traffic AWR 180 Lots\9_ Exhibits November 2025
Exhibit 7
Condition 4 Peak Hour Volumes (Cumulative + Project)
Project Site (Approximate)
Study Intersection
Future Intersection
Existing Roadway
Future Project Driveway
AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes
Legend
#
#
## / ##
60 / 50
551 / 632
96 / 68
692 / 686
1380 / 1290
10 / 10
40 / 30
711 / 130
268 / 194
81 / 302
190 / 480
240 / 320
10 / 20
310 / 310
280 / 288
734 / 662
140 / 178
380 / 250
260 / 300
750 / 650
40 / 20
40 / 20
190 / 320
650 / 720
440 / 260
690 / 100
50 / 40
152 / 188
109 / 199
820 / 720
480 / 510
337 / 542
80 / 80
880 / 845
10 / 60
10 / 10
290 / 450
516 / 700
260 / 330
120 / 210
729 / 779
450 / 560
11 / 20
150 / 280
192 / 216
1050 / 740
200 / 270
980 / 1410
40 / 10
467 / 400
1180 / 1288
20 / 10
10 / 30
100 / 50
50 / 20
491 / 560
10 / 10
620 / 550
189 / 319
740 / 760
340 / 400
20 / 10
83 / 412
120 / 250
150 / 140
10 / 20
850 / 680 15 / 50
451 / 892
580 / 750
10 / 30
622 / 796
170 / 120
10 / 10
20 / 10
40 / 30
221 / 166
30 / 160
16/ 91
88 / 83
84 / 46
10 / 57
196 / 318
53 / 29
42 / 43
272 / 318
35 / 50
150 / 250
51 / 41
1293 / 1256
1327 / 1558
60 / 50
7 / 40
82/ 162
37 / 20
4 / 23
276 / 341
22 / 12
78 / 182
180 / 320
Erringer Rd
Lost Canyons Dr
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Falcon St
SR-118
WB Ramps SR-118 EB Ramps
Tapo Canyon Rd
Alamo St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
“A” St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Lost Canyons
Golf Club
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
SR-118
WB Ramps
Alamo St Simi Town
CTR WY
Erringer Rd
SR-118 EB Ramps
13 1
3 5 11
1412 15
2 4
16 940
Attac
hment C -
Condition 1 Volumes
Excerpt from 2010 TIA
941
Exhibit 1H:\pdata\10107099\Traffic\Exhibits\Exh01.ai
Condition 1 AM & PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
OCT/2009
Not to Scale
AM/PM Peak Hour VolumesXX/XX
Legend:
Signal-Controlled Study Intersection
Stop-Controlled Study Intersection
xx
xx
Future Study Intersectionxx
98/169
17/33
1/2
0/5
41/7 0/2
0/0
179/91
218/365
6/9
461/185
1/2
2/3
15/9
259/484
142/317
16/33
150/46
329/167
0/0 83/65
1/8
533/403
0/0
4/1
28/7
331/148
308/567
92/215
808/467
58/122
42/95
73/189
374/627
42/134
104/318
1178/1085
11/21
839/1116
207/173
19/17
1/0
19/13
69/242
3/2
120/195
19/15
0/0
2/12
10/11
0/0
15/8
32/45
46/13
23/21
6/1
11/27
2/1 5/4
4/4
59/62
4/0
2/1
29/33
248/336
305/266
102/198
36/80
133/272
43/43
59/33
274/373
422/304
64/19
233/275
184/94
398/387
602/671
806/862
225/168
415/719
1168/961
80/161
666/968
169/158
86/190
15/43
305/281
33/102
353/356
1/22
1/3
17/30
37/63
1/13
55/43
31/22
47/86
27/31
0/2
0/2
56/68
150/266
372/578
220/224
51/59
502/428
78/119
52/37
372/325
316/240
111/123
298/513
237/276
375/303
517/783
71/132
996/937
37/16
232/314
28/59
660/561
15/15
106/153
10/36
1083/1240
969/976
312/246
0/0
338/464
7/7
322/383
ERRINGER RD/
ERRINGER RD
LOST CANYONS DR
LOST CNYNS
DR
ERRINGER RD/
ERRINGER RD
FALCON ST
FALCON ST
ERRINGER RD/
ERRINGER RD
ALAMO ST
ALAMO ST
ERRINGER RD/
ERRINGER RD
SR-118 WB RAMPS
SR-118 WB RAMPS
ERRINGER RD/
ERRINGER RD
SR-118 EB RAMPS
SR-118 EB RAMPS
ANDERSON DR/
ANDERSON DR
AVENIDA SIMI
AVENIDA SIMI
SYCAMORE DR/
SYCAMORE DR
AVENIDA SIMI
AVENIDA SIMI
SYCAMORE DR/
SYCAMORE DR
ALAMO ST
ALAMO ST
SYCAMORE DR/
SYCAMORE DR
SR-118 WB RAMPS
SR-118 WB RAMPS
SYCAMORE DR/
SYCAMORE DR
SR-118 EB RAMPS
SR-118 EB RAMPS
LOST CANYONS GOLF CLUB/
LOST CANYONS
GOLF CLUB
LOST CANYONS DR
LOST CANYONS DR
TAPO CANYON RD/
TAPO CANYON RD
LOST CANYONS DR
LOST CANYONS DR
TAPO CANYON RD/
TAPO CANYON RD
ALAMO ST
ALAMO ST
TAPO CANYON RD/
TAPO CANYON RD
SR-118 WB RAMPS
SR-118 WB RAMPS
TAPO CANYON RD/
TAPO CANYON RD
SR-118 EB RAMPS
SR-118 EB RAMPS
SIMI TOWN CTR WY
118
LOST CANYONS
SIMI TOWN
CENTER WYFALCON ST AVENIDA SIMI
ALAMO ST
SYCAMORE DR
ANDERSON DR
LOST CANYONS
GOLF CLUB
TAPO CANYON RD
"A" ST
"B" ST
ERRINGER RD
1 2
3 4
5 6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
1 2 3 4
56 7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14 15
942
Attac
hment D -
Condition 3 Volumes
Excerpt from 2007 TIA
943
944
Attachment E -
Analy
sis Worksheets
945
Int. 1 Lost Canyon Drive at Erringer Rd Int. 1 Lost Canyon Drive at Erringer Rd AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1
4 4 1 1
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Lane Settings 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Capacity 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 0 0 0 0 3600 0 1800 Capacity 3600 0 1800 1800 1800 0 1800 3600 1800 1800 3600 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 1 17 112 0 41 0 0 0 0 254 0 0 Hourly Volume 690 50 152 50 100 10 20 83 120 268 711 40 Adjusted Hourly Volume 1 17 112 0 41 0 0 0 0 254 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 690 0 202 50 110 0 20 83 120 268 711 40 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.19 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.15 0.20 0.02 Critical Factors 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 Critical Factors 0.19 0.06 0.07 0.15 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.13 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.47 LOS = A
Int. 1 Lost Canyon Drive at Erringer Rd Int. 1 Lost Canyon Drive at Erringer Rd PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Config - (left) 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 urations 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 urations 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Lane Settings 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Capacity 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 0 0 0 0 3600 0 1800 Capacity 3600 0 1800 1800 1800 0 1800 3600 1800 1800 3600 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 2 33 249 5 7 0 0 0 0 132 0 2 Hourly Volume 100 40 188 20 50 30 10 412 250 194 130 30 Adjusted Hourly Volume 2 33 249 5 7 0 0 0 0 132 0 2 Adjusted Hourly Volume 100 40 228 20 80 0 10 412 250 194 130 30 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.03 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.04 0.02 Critical Factors 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 Critical Factors 0.13 0.01 0.14 0.11 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.18 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.39 LOS = A
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 946
Int. 2 Erringer Rd at Falcon St Int. 2 Erringer Rd at Falcon St AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 urations 3 1 1
4 4
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Capacity 1800 3600 0 0 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 0 Capacity 1800 3600 0 0 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 6 232 0 0 536 1 2 0 15 0 0 0 Hourly Volume 60 551 0 0 692 96 221 0 30 0 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 6 232 0 0 536 1 2 0 15 0 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 60 551 0 0 692 96 221 0 30 0 0 0 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.03 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.05 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.03 0.19 0.12 0.00 0.00 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.16 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.34 LOS = A
Int. 2 Erringer Rd at Falcon St Int. 2 Erringer Rd at Falcon St PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 urations 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 urations 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Capacity 1800 3600 0 0 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 0 Capacity 1800 3600 0 0 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 9 445 0 0 226 2 3 0 9 0 0 0 Hourly Volume 50 632 0 0 686 68 166 0 160 0 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 9 445 0 0 226 2 3 0 9 0 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 50 632 0 0 686 68 166 0 160 0 0 0 Utilization Factor 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.03 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.03 0.19 0.09 0.00 0.00 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.13 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.31 LOS = A
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 947
Int. 3 Erringer Rd at Alamo St Int. 3 Erringer Rd at Alamo St AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1
4 1 4 1
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 Lane Settings 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 1800 3600 0 0 0 1800 3600 0 1800 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 1800 3600 0 0 0 1800 3600 0 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Hourly Volume 16 156 259 150 404 0 0 4 28 533 1 83 Hourly Volume 15 451 580 170 622 10 10 20 40 850 10 150 Adjusted Hourly Volume 16 156 259 150 404 0 0 4 32 617 0 83 Adjusted Hourly Volume 15 451 580 170 632 0 0 30 70 860 0 150 Utilization Factor 0.01 0.04 0.14 0.08 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.05 Utilization Factor 0.01 0.13 0.32 0.09 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.24 0.00 0.08 Critical Factors 0.14 0.08 0.02 0.17 Critical Factors 0.32 0.09 0.04 0.24 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.41 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.69 LOS = B
Int. 3 Erringer Rd at Alamo St Int. 3 Erringer Rd at Alamo St PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 urations 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 urations 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 Lane Settings 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 1800 3600 0 0 0 1800 3600 0 1800 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 1800 3600 0 0 0 1800 3600 0 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Hourly Volume 33 397 484 46 208 0 0 1 7 403 8 65 Hourly Volume 50 892 750 120 796 30 10 10 30 680 20 140 Adjusted Hourly Volume 33 397 484 46 208 0 0 1 8 476 0 65 Adjusted Hourly Volume 50 892 750 120 826 0 0 20 50 700 0 140 Utilization Factor 0.02 0.11 0.27 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.04 Utilization Factor 0.03 0.25 0.42 0.07 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.19 0.00 0.08 Critical Factors 0.27 0.03 0.00 0.13 Critical Factors 0.42 0.07 0.03 0.19 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.43 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.71 LOS = C
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 948
Int. 4 Erringer Rd at SR-118 Westbound Ramps Int. 4 Erringer Rd at SR-118 Westbound Ramps AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 4 1 1
5 5 1
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 1 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 Lane Settings 2 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 0 5400 0 1800 0 3600 3600 1800 1800 Capacity 3600 3600 1800 0 3600 1800 1800 0 3600 3600 1800 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 92 319 331 0 882 58 42 0 104 374 73 45 Hourly Volume 190 650 440 0 1050 192 81 0 190 750 260 380 Adjusted Hourly Volume 92 319 331 0 940 0 42 0 104 374 118 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 190 650 440 0 1050 192 81 0 190 750 260 380 Utilization Factor 0.05 0.09 0.18 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.10 0.07 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.05 0.18 0.24 0.00 0.29 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.21 0.14 0.21 Critical Factors 0.05 0.17 0.03 0.10 Critical Factors 0.05 0.29 0.05 0.21 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.35 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.60 LOS = A
Int. 4 Erringer Rd at SR-118 Westbound Ramps Int. 4 Erringer Rd at SR-118 Westbound Ramps PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 Config - (left) 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 urations 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 urations 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 Lane Settings 2 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 0 5400 0 1800 0 3600 3600 1800 1800 Capacity 3600 3600 1800 0 3600 1800 1800 0 3600 3600 1800 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 215 632 148 0 508 122 134 0 318 627 189 110 Hourly Volume 320 720 260 0 740 216 302 0 480 650 300 250 Adjusted Hourly Volume 215 632 148 0 630 0 134 0 318 627 299 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 320 720 260 0 740 216 302 0 480 650 300 250 Utilization Factor 0.12 0.18 0.08 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.09 0.20 0.14 0.00 0.21 0.12 0.17 0.00 0.13 0.18 0.17 0.14 Critical Factors 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.17 Critical Factors 0.09 0.21 0.17 0.18 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.50 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.65 LOS = B
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 949
Int. 5 Erringer Rd at SR-118 Eastbound Ramps Int. 5 Erringer Rd at SR-118 Eastbound Ramps AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1
4 1 4 1
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 0 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 Lane Settings 0 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 Capacity 0 5400 0 1800 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 1800 0 0 Capacity 0 5400 0 1800 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 1800 0 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 0 1178 0 11 841 221 80 3 120 19 1 19 Hourly Volume 0 1380 10 40 980 200 240 10 310 40 0 40 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 1178 0 11 841 221 80 0 123 39 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 1390 0 40 980 200 240 0 320 80 0 0 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.12 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.02 0.27 0.11 0.13 0.00 0.18 0.04 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.23 0.07 0.02 Critical Factors 0.26 0.02 0.18 0.04 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.32 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.50 LOS = A
Int. 5 Erringer Rd at SR-118 Eastbound Ramps Int. 5 Erringer Rd at SR-118 Eastbound Ramps PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 urations 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 urations 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 0 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 Lane Settings 0 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 Capacity 0 5400 0 1800 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 1800 Capacity 0 5400 0 1800 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 1800 0 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 0 1087 0 21 1117 181 305 2 195 13 0 17 Hourly Volume 0 1290 10 10 1410 270 320 20 310 20 0 20 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 1087 0 21 1117 181 305 0 197 0 0 30 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 1300 0 10 1410 270 320 0 330 40 0 0 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.01 0.31 0.10 0.17 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.39 0.15 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.02 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.31 0.17 0.02 Critical Factors 0.00 0.39 0.18 0.02 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.50 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.59 LOS = A
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 950
Int. 11 Lost Canyons Dr at Golf Club Dwy Int. 11 Lost Canyons Dr at Golf Club Dwy AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 Config - (left) 2 1 urations 3 urations 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Settings 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 1800 1800 1800 0 0 1800 0 Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 1800 1800 1800 0 0 1800 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 84 0 53 10 59 0 0 55 16 Hourly Volume 84 0 46 10 196 0 0 88 16 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 0 0 0 0 137 69 59 0 0 71 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 0 0 0 0 130 10 196 0 0 104 0 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.04 Critical Factors 0.00 0.07 0.11 0.06 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.16 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.24 LOS = A
Int. 11 Lost Canyons Dr at Golf Club Dwy Int. 11 Lost Canyons Dr at Golf Club Dwy PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Lane Inside 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Config - (left) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 urations 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 urations 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 Lane Settings 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 1800 1800 1800 0 0 0 1800 Capacity 0 0 0 1800 0 0 1800 1800 0 0 0 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 46 0 29 57 66 0 0 72 91 Hourly Volume 46 0 29 57 318 0 0 83 91 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 0 0 0 0 75 57 66 0 0 0 163 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 0 0 130 0 0 57 318 0 0 0 174 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 Critical Factors 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.09 Critical Factors 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.18 0.10 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.16 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.35 LOS = A
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 951
Int. 12 Lost Canyons Dr at Tapo Canyon Rd Int. 12 Lost Canyons Dr at Tapo Canyon Rd AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 urations 3 urations 3 1 1
4 4
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Capacity 1800 1800 0 0 1800 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 0 Capacity 1800 3600 0 0 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 56 31 0 0 27 0 0 0 177 Hourly Volume 78 180 0 0 150 11 42 0 272 Adjusted Hourly Volume 56 31 0 0 27 0 0 0 177 0 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 78 180 0 0 150 11 42 0 272 0 0 0 Utilization Factor 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.00 Critical Factors 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.00 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.15 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.23 LOS = A
Int. 12 Lost Canyons Dr at Tapo Canyon Rd Int. 12 Lost Canyons Dr at Tapo Canyon Rd PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 urations 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 urations 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Capacity 1800 1800 0 0 1800 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 0 Capacity 1800 3600 0 0 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 189 22 0 0 31 2 2 0 107 Hourly Volume 182 320 0 0 280 20 43 0 318 Adjusted Hourly Volume 189 22 0 0 31 2 2 0 107 0 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 182 320 0 0 280 20 43 0 318 0 0 0 Utilization Factor 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.10 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.11 0.02 0.06 0.00 Critical Factors 0.10 0.08 0.18 0.00 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.19 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.36 LOS = A
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 952
Int. 13 Tapo Canyon Dr at Alamo St Int. 13 Tapo Canyon Dr at Alamo St AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 5 1 1
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 1 3 0 1 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Lane Settings 1 3 0 1 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Capacity 1800 5400 0 1800 5400 0 3600 3600 1800 3600 3600 1800 Capacity 1800 5400 0 1800 5400 0 3600 3600 1800 3600 3600 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 220 391 150 61 603 88 113 298 237 316 372 54 Hourly Volume 290 516 260 140 734 280 189 740 340 480 820 109 Adjusted Hourly Volume 220 541 0 61 691 0 113 298 237 316 372 54 Adjusted Hourly Volume 290 776 0 140 1014 0 189 740 340 480 820 109 Utilization Factor 0.12 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.13 0.09 0.10 0.03 Utilization Factor 0.16 0.14 0.00 0.08 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.21 0.19 0.13 0.23 0.06 Critical Factors 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.09 Critical Factors 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.13 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.47 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.69 LOS = B
Int. 13 Tapo Canyon Dr at Alamo St Int. 13 Tapo Canyon Dr at Alamo St PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 urations 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 urations 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 3 0 1 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Lane Settings 1 3 0 1 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Capacity 1800 5400 0 1800 5400 0 3600 3600 1800 3600 3600 1800 Capacity 1800 5400 0 1800 5400 0 3600 3600 1800 3600 3600 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 224 687 266 64 484 124 134 513 276 240 325 48 Hourly Volume 450 700 330 178 662 288 319 760 400 510 720 199 Adjusted Hourly Volume 224 953 0 64 608 0 134 513 276 240 325 48 Adjusted Hourly Volume 450 1030 0 178 950 0 319 760 400 510 720 199 Utilization Factor 0.12 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.15 0.07 0.09 0.03 Utilization Factor 0.25 0.19 0.00 0.10 0.18 0.00 0.09 0.21 0.22 0.14 0.20 0.11 Critical Factors 0.12 0.11 0.15 0.07 Critical Factors 0.25 0.18 0.22 0.14 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.45 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.79 LOS = C
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 953
Int. 14 Tapo Canyon Dr at SR-118 Westbound Ramps Int. 14 Tapo Canyon Dr at SR-118 Westbound Ramps AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1
4 1 4 1
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 1 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 Lane Settings 1 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 0 5400 0 1800 0 1800 3600 0 1800 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 0 5400 0 1800 0 1800 3600 0 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Hourly Volume 71 522 375 0 1086 48 15 0 106 660 28 246 Hourly Volume 120 729 450 0 1293 51 35 0 150 880 80 337 Adjusted Hourly Volume 71 522 375 0 1134 0 15 0 106 934 0 246 Adjusted Hourly Volume 120 729 450 0 1344 0 35 0 150 960 0 337 Utilization Factor 0.04 0.15 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.26 0.00 0.14 Utilization Factor 0.07 0.20 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.27 0.00 0.19 Critical Factors 0.04 0.21 0.06 0.26 Critical Factors 0.07 0.25 0.08 0.27 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.57 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.67 LOS = B
Int. 14 Tapo Canyon Dr at SR-118 Westbound Ramps Int. 14 Tapo Canyon Dr at SR-118 Westbound Ramps PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 urations 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 urations 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 Lane Settings 1 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 0 5400 0 1800 0 1800 3600 0 1800 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 0 5400 0 1800 0 1800 3600 0 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Hourly Volume 132 810 303 0 987 22 15 0 153 561 59 396 Hourly Volume 210 779 560 0 1256 41 50 0 250 845 80 542 Adjusted Hourly Volume 132 810 303 0 1009 0 15 0 153 1016 0 396 Adjusted Hourly Volume 210 779 560 0 1297 0 50 0 250 925 0 542 Utilization Factor 0.07 0.23 0.17 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.28 0.00 0.22 Utilization Factor 0.12 0.22 0.31 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.14 0.26 0.00 0.30 Critical Factors 0.07 0.19 0.09 0.28 Critical Factors 0.12 0.24 0.14 0.30 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.63 LOS = B ICU Ratio = 0.80 LOS = C
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 954
Int. 15 Tapo Canyon Rd at SR-118 Eastbound Ramps Int. 15 Tapo Canyon Rd at SR-118 Eastbound Ramps AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1
4 4 1
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 0 3 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 Lane Settings 0 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 Capacity 0 5400 0 0 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 1800 Capacity 0 5400 0 1800 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 1800 0 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 0 1086 10 0 985 386 340 7 322 0 0 0 Hourly Volume 0 1327 60 20 1180 467 491 10 620 10 0 10 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 1096 0 0 985 386 347 0 322 0 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 1387 0 20 1180 467 501 0 620 20 0 0 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.21 0.19 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.33 0.26 0.28 0.00 0.34 0.01 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.27 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.33 0.34 0.01 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.46 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.68 LOS = B
Int. 15 Tapo Canyon Rd at SR-118 Eastbound Ramps Int. 15 Tapo Canyon Rd at SR-118 Eastbound Ramps PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 Lane Inside 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 urations 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 urations 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 0 3 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 Lane Settings 0 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 Capacity 0 5400 0 0 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 1800 Capacity 0 5400 0 1800 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 1800 0 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 0 1257 36 0 985 287 474 7 383 0 0 0 Hourly Volume 0 1558 50 10 1288 400 560 10 550 10 0 60 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 1293 0 0 985 287 481 0 383 0 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 1608 0 10 1288 400 570 0 550 10 0 60 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.16 0.27 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.36 0.22 0.32 0.00 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.03 Critical Factors 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.36 0.32 0.03 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.54 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.71 LOS = C
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 955
Int. 16 Lost Canyons Dr at "A" St Int. 16 Lost Canyons Dr at "A" St AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 Config - (left) 2 1 urations 3 urations 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Settings 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Capacity 0 0 0 1800 0 0 1800 1800 0 0 1800 0 Capacity 0 0 0 1800 0 0 1800 1800 0 0 1800 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 37 22 4 139 49 7 Hourly Volume 37 0 22 4 276 82 7 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 0 0 59 0 0 4 139 0 0 56 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 0 0 59 0 0 4 276 280 89 89 0 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.03 Critical Factors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.15 0.00 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.14 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.18 LOS = A
Int. 16 Lost Canyons Dr at "A" St Int. 16 Lost Canyons Dr at "A" St PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Lane Inside 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Config - (left) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 urations 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 urations 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Settings 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Capacity 0 0 0 1800 0 0 1800 1800 0 0 1800 0 Capacity 0 0 0 1800 0 0 1800 1800 0 0 1800 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 20 12 23 89 151 40 Hourly Volume 20 12 23 341 162 40 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 0 0 32 0 0 23 89 0 191 191 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 0 0 32 0 0 23 341 0 0 202 0 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.11 Critical Factors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.19 0.11 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.14 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.32 LOS = A
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 956
APPLICATION FOR: GPA-2024-0003, Z-S-2025-
0003, SP-S-2025-0002, PD-S-2025-0003, AND
TT-2025-0002
Addendum No. 1 to the EIR
For the Lost Canyons Specific Plan Project
Prepared for City of Simi Valley
Department of Environmental Services
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, California 93063
Prepared by Psomas
150 South Arroyo Parkway, Suite 102
Pasadena, California 91105
May 2026
957
Table of Contents
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT i
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 1-1
1.2 Regulatory Guidance ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 1-1
1.3 Environmental Review Process ................................ ................................ ...................... 1-3
2.0 Project Description and Setting ...................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Location ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2-1
2.2 Existing Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 2-1
2.3 Proposed Project ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 2-1
3.0 Environmental Checklist ................................................................................................... 3-3
3.1 Aesthetics ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 3-4
3.1.1 2011 EIR .......................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.1.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-8
3.2 Air Quality ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 3-11
3.2.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-11
3.2.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-16
3.3 Biological Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 3-26
3.3.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-26
3.3.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-42
3.4 Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 3-51
3.4.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-51
3.4.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-54
3.5 Energy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3-56
3.5.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-56
3.5.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-56
3.6 Geology and Soils ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3-61
3.6.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-61
3.6.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-69
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................ ................................ ............................ 3-73
3.7.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-73
3.7.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-74
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................ ................................ .............. 3-79 958
Table of Contents
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ii
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
3.8.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-79
3.8.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-83
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................ ................................ ....................... 3-87
3.9.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-87
3.9.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-92
3.10 Land Use and Planning ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3-97
3.10.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-97
3.10.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-98
3.11 Mineral Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 3-100
3.11.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-100
3.11.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-102
3.12 Noise ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3-103
3.12.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-103
3.12.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-108
3.13 Population and Housing ................................ ................................ ............................... 3-115
3.13.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-115
3.13.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-116
3.14 Public Services ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 3-118
3.14.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-118
3.14.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-123
3.15 Recreation ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 3-126
3.15.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-126
3.15.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-127
3.16 Transportation ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 3-129
3.16.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-129
3.16.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-131
3.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ............................ 3-134
3.17.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-134
3.17.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-135
3.18 Utilities and Service Systems ................................ ................................ ..................... 3-137
3.18.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-137
3.18.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-142
3.19 Wildfire ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 3-149
3.19.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-149
3.19.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-149 959
Table of Contents
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT iii
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
4.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 4-1
5.0 References .............................................................................................................................. 5-1
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 1-1
1.2 Regulatory Guidance ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 1-1
1.3 Environmental Review Process ................................ ................................ ...................... 1-3
2.0 Project Description and Setting ...................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Location ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2-1
2.2 Existing Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 2-1
2.3 Proposed Project ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 2-1
3.0 Environmental Checklist ................................................................................................... 3-3
3.1 Aesthetics ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 3-4
3.1.1 2011 EIR .......................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.1.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-8
3.2 Air Quality ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 3-11
3.2.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-11
3.2.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-16
3.3 Biological Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 3-26
3.3.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-26
3.3.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-42
3.4 Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 3-51
3.4.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-51
3.4.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-54
3.5 Energy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3-56
3.5.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-56
3.5.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-56
3.6 Geology and Soils ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3-61
3.6.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-61
3.6.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-69
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................ ................................ ............................ 3-73
3.7.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-73
3.7.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-74
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................ ................................ .............. 3-79 960
Table of Contents
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT iv
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
3.8.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-79
3.8.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-83
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................ ................................ ....................... 3-87
3.9.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-87
3.9.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-92
3.10 Land Use and Planning ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3-97
3.10.1 2011 EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-97
3.10.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-98
3.11 Mineral Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 3-100
3.11.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-100
3.11.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-102
3.12 Noise ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3-103
3.12.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-103
3.12.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-108
3.13 Population and Housing ................................ ................................ ............................... 3-115
3.13.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-115
3.13.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-116
3.14 Public Services ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 3-118
3.14.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-118
3.14.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-123
3.15 Recreation ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 3-126
3.15.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-126
3.15.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-127
3.16 Transportation ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 3-129
3.16.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-129
3.16.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-131
3.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ............................ 3-134
3.17.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-134
3.17.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-135
3.18 Utilities and Service Systems ................................ ................................ ..................... 3-137
3.18.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-137
3.18.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-142
3.19 Wildfire ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 3-149
3.19.1 2011 EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-149
3.19.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ................................................................... 3-149 961
Table of Contents
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT v
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
4.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 4-1
5.0 References .............................................................................................................................. 5-1
TABLES
Table Page
No table of figures entries found.
No table of figures entries found.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Follows Page
No table of figures entries found.
No table of figures entries found.
APPENDICES
Appendix
A Biological Resources Surveys – Champers Group
B Updated Phase 1 Mature Tree Inventory – Chambers Group C Summary of Cultural and Paleontological Resources Studies – Chambers Group D Reduced Footprint Impact Analysis – Glenn Lukos Associates E Air Quality Assessment Memorandum – Michael Baker International F Energy Assessment Memorandum – Michael Baker International G Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Memorandum – Michael Baker International H Noise and Vibration Assessment Memorandum – Michael Baker International I Transportation Memorandum – Michael Baker International J Hydrology and Hydraulics Study – JLC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
K Water System Master Plan – RTM Engineering Consultants, LLC L Sewer System Master Plan – RTM Engineering Consultants, LLC
962
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 1-1
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Whiteface Specific Plan was originally adopted by the City of Simi Valley in 1992.
Between 1992 and 2010, the Whiteface Specific Plan was amended five times. On February 14, 2011, the Simi Valley City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (e.g., the “2011 EIR”) for Amendment No. 6 to the Whiteface Specific Plan, which was prepared to evaluate the Lost Canyons Project (the Approved Project). As a part of adopting the Approved Project, the City adopted general plan amendments and amended the Whiteface Specific Plan ( GPA-77/SP-S-13 AMD #6/Z -S-634). The Applicant subsequently requested approval of Tentative Tract Map TTM 5734 and a Planned Development Permit (PD-S-1021), which was Amendment No. 7 . Overall, as amended by Whiteface Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 and the Lost Canyons Project (the “Approved Project”) , the Whitefac e Specific Plan allows for a maximum of 364 dwelling units within the boundaries of the Whiteface Specific Plan.
In their certification and adoption of the 2011 EIR, the Simi Valley City Council determined that the 2011 EIR was complete and was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq.).
The 2011 EIR determined that the Project would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2025, NPLC Lost Canyons, LLC applied to amend the Whiteface Specific Plan and other project documents for an eighth time (Amendment No. 8) to allow for the transfer of 180 of the 364 approved dwelling units that are allowed within the Whiteface Specific Plan boundaries pursuant to the Approved Project. The 180 units would be transferred from the southern portions of Dry and Tapo Canyons as previously proposed with the Approved Project. Instead, the Proposed Project would create a development that would occur mostly within the limits of the former golf course that is located north of Lost Canyon Drive , along with other associated activities . This action is referred to herein as the “Proposed Project”.
Additional details on the Proposed Project are provided in the Project Description in Section
1.3. 1.2 REGULATORY GUIDANCE
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) provides that when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the Lead Agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record , that one or more of the following circumstances exist:
A. When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
963
Introduction
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 1-2
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantia l increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 provides that a Lead Agency can prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 is required and only minor additions or changes are needed to make the previous EIR adequate to address the changed situation.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 provides that the Lead Agency may prepare an Addendum to a certified EIR if none of the conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 must be included in the addendum, Lead Agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. 964
Introduction
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 1-3
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the City has reviewed the Project and associated Specific Plan Amendments, as well as the 2011 EIR to determine:
1. The extent to which the potential impacts from the Proposed Project and associated entitlements have been addressed by the previously certified EIR for Amendment 6 to the Whiteface Specific Plan;
2. Whether the Proposed Project and associated entitlements create any new significant or more severe environmental impacts;
3. Whether new circumstances or new information create new significant or more severe impacts or require new analysis, and
4. Whether any identified new significant or more severe impacts are adequately addressed by previously approved mitigation measures.
The City has determined that the Project would have similar or reduced environmental impacts from those described in the certified EIR. There are no new significant environmental impacts or previously identified significant impacts made more severe by changes in the Project, new circumstances, and/or new information. Therefore, the City has determined that a subsequent EIR is not required pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Rather, the City has determined that an EIR addendum should be prepared as the appropriate CEQA document to address the Project in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c) provides that an EIR addendum need not be circulated for public review.
965
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 2-1
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project Site consists of approximately 1,770 acres of land in the City of Simi Valley within Ventura County, California. The Project Site is located within an area of the City that is covered by the Whiteface Specific Plan. The overall Whiteface Specific Plan covers a total of approximately 2,686 acres.
The Project Site is characterized by rolling to semi-steep hills with a predominant ridgeline running northwest to southeast and intermittent drainage courses, generally running north to south. Elevations in the Project Site range from approximately 1 ,225 feet near the southeast to approximately 1 ,500 feet near the northwest with slopes ranging on average from approximately 15% to 40%.
A closed golf course, once known as Shadow Canyon Golf Course, occupies much of the Project Site with greens, cart paths and a (dry) pond still visible. Structures and amenities, including a golf club parking lot, that were located near the southwest portion of the Project Site have been demolished.
2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing uses on the Project Site include two graded 18 -hole golf courses, a clubhouse, and associated facilities such as a cart barn, driving range, parking lot, and open space, which is permanently closed.
According to the Land Use Map contained in the Simi Valley General Plan, the parcels in the Project Site are designated as the following land uses : Open Space, Residential Estate, Residential Low, Residential Medium, and Recreation Commercial.
2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
The Proposed Project consists of the transfer of 180 dwelling units permitted within the Whiteface Specific Plan boundaries from the southern portion of the specific plan area to the northern portion of the specific plan area. Specifically, the 180 units would be relocated from the southern areas within Dry Canyon and Tapo Canyon to areas north of Lost Canyons Drive.
Overall, the Proposed Project would result in a total of 364 residential lots, including 362 lots north of Lost Canyons Drive and two estate lots located south of Lost Canyons Drive, including one in Dry Canyon and one in Tapo Canyon , both of which would be accessible from existing easements. Instead of spreading the 364 units throughout a wider footprint in the Whiteface Specific Plan as was or iginally approved with the Approved Project , the Proposed Project would cluster 362 of the 364 units within the northern area of the Whiteface Specific Plan where the Shadow Canyon Golf Course previously operated. 966
Project Description and Setting
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 2-2
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
Also, t he Proposed Project would not include the development of a new golf course, a clubhouse, or a private park as was approved with the Approved Project. Instead, the Proposed Project proposes to provide recreational amenities including a private recreation building for residents of the development as well as public recreational trails through the southern portion of the Project Site and public recreational trails on the golf course trails that exist within portions of the northern portion of the Project Site.
The Proposed Project would retain the Residential Estate (RE) zoning designation on four areas in the Specific Plan boundaries that currently have this designation, and the Applicant proposes a maximum of sixteen residential estate lots that could be developed within these areas of the specific plan . Minimum lot sizes for RE lots are a minimum of 20 acres. The evaluation herein of biological resources and other resource topics does not account for any future development within these RE zoned areas given there are currently no plans for site- specific development in these areas. As such, the analyses herein assume that RE zoned areas are not disturbed or impacted by development. It should be noted that the CEQA documentation for the Whiteface Specific Plan as well as for the Approved Project evaluated the environmental effects of up to 1,211 residential units in the specific plan boundaries. The Proposed Project would result in 364 units in addition to the 847 units that were allowed to be built in Sand Canyon/Big Sky Ranch area of the specific plan boundaries , of which approximately 738 residential units have been built to date.
The Proposed Project would include the following approvals:
• A General Plan Amendment (GPA);
• A Zone Change;
• A Specific Plan Amendment (SPA);
• A Planned Development Permit (PDP) Modification; and
• A Tentative Map.
• A Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW;
• A Water Quality Certification or Report of Waste Discharge Requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and
• A Biological Opinion from the USFWS.
967
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-3
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
3.0 ENVIRONMENT AL CHECKLIST
This EIR Addendum evaluates whether any of the conditions requiring preparation of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR), pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, are met, and whether there are new significant impacts resulting from the Project, as compared to the impacts previously approved and analyzed in the 2011 EIR. As previously identified in Section 1.0, Introduction, of this Addendum, between 1992 and 2010, the Whiteface Specific Plan was amended five times. On February 14, 2011, the Simi Valley City Council certified the Final EIR for Amendment 6 to the Whiteface Specific Plan, which was prepared for the Lost Canyons Project. The analysis contained within this EIR Addendum relies upon and incorporates by reference the said Final EIR (i.e., the 2011 EIR).
This EIR Addendum uses Appendix G of the Environmental Checklist Form, pursuant to 15063(d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, that compa res the anticipated environmental effects of the Project with those addressed in the 2011 EIR.
For each topical issue, summaries of the environmental analysis conclusions from the 2011 EIR are provided along with mitigation measures, as applicable . Following the summary of the 2011 EIR, the analysis for the Project is presented.
This document is an Addendum to the adopted 2011 EIR and demonstrates that there are no changes to the previous information or analysis or changes in circumstances that would substantially increase significant environmental impacts or create any new significant impacts. This EIR Addendum d emonstrates that no new information of substantial importance has been identified that shows the Project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the 2011 EIR. Additionally, this EIR Addendum demonstrates that no new mitigation measures are required beyond the mitigation measures that were previously identified in the 2011 EIR as well as the measures and conditions that are contained in the Project’s regulatory permits from CDFW, USWS, USACE, and the RWQCB. 968
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-4
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
3.1.1 2011 EIR
As described in the 2011 EIR, the Project Site’s topography is defined by two prominent canyons—Dry Canyon and Tapo Canyon —and their associated ridgelines and drainage channels. Elevations range from approximately 1,200 feet above sea level in the southern portion of the site to over 2,200 feet in the northern portion. The higher elevations are visible from various locations throughout Simi Valley.
Scenic Vistas
The 2011 EIR disclosed that the Approved Project would alter views from certain off -site public vantage points. These locations currently enjoy relatively unobstructed views of natural open space, including hillsides, ridgelines, and canyons within the Project Site. With implementation of the Approved Project, partial views of residential development would replace portions of these natural vistas. Additionally, short -term visual impacts were identified, including views of grading and construction activities.
To minimize visual impacts, the Approved Project was designed to concentrate development in canyon bottoms and lower elevations, preserving higher elevations as open space. The 2011 EIR concluded that the Approved Project would not substantially alter off-site views of the Whiteface Escarpment or other visual features such as the ridgelines of Dry and Tapo Canyons and sm aller ridgelines within their drainage areas. Compliance with the City’s Hillside Performance Standards (HPS) was required to further reduce aesthetic impacts. The 2011 EIR determined that, with implementation of mitigation measures 4.1-1 through 4.1-6, the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts to scenic vistas.
As required by mitigation measure 4.1-1, prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for grading, the applicant must submit a Landscape Plan, specifications, and a separate Maintenance Plan.
These plans must align with the conditions of approval and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, incorporating recommendations from the biological resources mitigation program and Fire Hazard Reducti on Program. The plans must be reviewed by the City Landscape Architect or consultant and approved by the Environmental Services Director.
As required by mitigation measure 4.1-2, before approval of any final tract maps, a detailed landscape plan for the applicable development phase must be reviewed and approved by the City’s Environmental Services Department. The plan must be prepared and certified by a restoration ecologist or licensed landscape architect with expertise in native plant materials and habitat restoration.
As required by mitigation measure 4.1-3, t o minimize grading impacts, all manufactured slopes must be landscaped with shallow -rooted, soil-binding plants within three months of grading completion. Topsoil should be reused, and slopes stabilized with non -toxic materials. Irrigation systems must be UV-resistant and designed for reclaimed water use.
Initial revegetation must use a hydro-seed mix of fast-growing annual grasses and summer- flowering forbs.
969
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-5
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
As required by m itigation measure 4.1-4, all concrete structures in natural areas —such as drainage ditches, detention basins, rip-rap, crib walls, swales, or curbs—must be constructed using colored concrete to blend with the surrounding terrain.
As required by m itigation measure 4.1 -5, the Specific Plan includes design guidelines for architectural styles, building materials, and colors that harmonize with the surrounding landscape. Exterior building and roofing materials must appear natural, and bright or contrasting colors are prohibited.
As required by mitigation measure 4.1-6, to minimize changes to the site’s visual character, tree screens must be placed along the southern perimeter of the Specific Plan area to obscure views of structures above ridgelines. Trees must reflect the character of the area or its historic context and be of sufficient size at maturity to screen the proposed structures.
With implementation of mitigation measures 4.1-1 through 4.1-6, the 2011 EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts related to scenic vistas.
Scenic Resources
The 2011 EIR found that the Approved Project would generally limit grading to low -lying areas within the on -site canyons, preserving higher elevations and steep slopes as undeveloped open space. This includes the Whiteface Escarpment portion of Big Mountai n within the Project Site.
The EIR also identified the presence of 683 protected trees on the Project Site, in accordance with the City of Simi Valley Development Code. These included 208 coast live oaks and 14 valley oaks. Of these, 366 trees were identified for removal or direct impact due to the Approved Project, whil e 317 trees would remain unaffected. Thus, 46 percent of the inventoried trees would be preserved.
Although the removal of protected trees was considered a potentially significant impact, the EIR concluded that with implementation of mitigation measures 4.3 -30 through 4.3 -47— focused on replacement tree planting—and adherence to Development Code requirements, the impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Visual Character
The 2011 EIR disclosed that the Approved Project would result in temporary impacts to visual character due to views of active construction from adjacent residential areas. Long - term changes to visual character were also identified, stemming from the introd uction of residential development into a previously undeveloped landscape.
However, the EIR concluded that these impacts would be less than significant, due to several design features:
• Use of native vegetation along development edges.
970
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-6
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
• Preservation of higher-elevation open space, which remains visible from off-site. • The Approved Project’s low -density and estate -density residential uses were found to be visually compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.
Also, the Approved Project would be required to implement the Citywide and Residential Design Guidelines adopted by Simi Valley, which promote architectural excellence and community identity through:
• Site-sensitive design.
• Use of natural materials and subdued colors.
• Integration of landscaping to soften visual transitions.
Light and Glare
The 2011 EIR found that the Approved Project would introduce new lighting sources typical of urban development, including: vehicle headlights; streetlights; fixed outdoor lighting; and reflective building materials contributing to daytime glare. These impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures 4.1-7 and 4.1-8.
As required by mitigation measure 4.1 -7, prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the applicant must submit a lighting plan to the Departments of Environmental Services and Public Works. The plan must be prepared by a qualified lighting consultant and comply with City standards, including:
• Maximum 0.5 foot-candle for light spill at property lines. • Maximum 1.0 foot-candle for glare from streetlamps.
• Use of shielded, full cut-off fixtures to minimize skyglow and light trespass.
As required by mitigation measure 4.1-8, upon installation, all street lighting fixtures must be tested by factory-trained technicians to ensure compliance with glare and spill thresholds.
Testing must confirm that lighting does not exceed the specified foot -candle levels at adjacent property boundaries.
Mitigation Program
• 4.1-1. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for grading, the applicant shall submit a Landscape Plan, together with specifications and a separate Maintenance Plan. The Landscape Plan shall encompass all areas required to be planted consistent with the conditions of approval and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and shall incorporate the recommendations of the biological resources mitigation program and Fire Hazard Reduction Program. The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed by the Ci ty of Simi Valley Landscape Architect and/or consultant and approved by the Environmental Services Director prior to Zoning Clearance for grading permit, or first Tract Map approval, whichever occurs first. 971
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-7
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
• 4.1-2. Prior to the approval of any final tract maps, a detailed landscape plan for the applicable development phase shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Simi Valley Environmental Services Department. The plan shall be prepared and certified by a restor ation ecologist or licensed landscape architect with expertise in native plant materials and habitat restoration.
• 4.1-3. To minimize the effects of grading, all manufactured slopes shall be landscaped, planted with shallow rooted soil binding plants as soon as possible (within three months) after completion of grading. Graded slopes should reuse topsoil and be planted and stabilized with non -toxic stabilizers in compliance with City -approved landscape, irrigation, and maintenance requirements. The irrigation system shall be UV-resistant, on-grade “purple pipe,” or equivalent based on the anticipation of the use of recl aimed water for the Project Site . The hydro -seed mix used in initial revegetation efforts shall consist of a mix of fast-growing annual grasses and summer flowering forbs.
• 4.1-4. All concrete structures, such as drainage ditches, detention basins, riprap, crib walls, swales, or curbs, located in natural areas shall be constructed with colored concrete to blend with the surrounding terrain.
• 4.1-5. The Specific Plan has design guidelines that establish architectural styles and elements shall detail exterior elevation designs, building materials, and colors for the proposed houses that fit in with the surrounding landscape; further described in detail in the Specific Plan Design Guidelines Section 4.0 Architecture. Exterior building and roofing materials shall be natural in appearance ; bright or contrasting colors shall not be used.
• 4.1-6. To minimize the change in the visual character of the site, tree screens shall be placed along the southern perimeter of the Specific Plan area to limit views of the structures observable above ridgelines within the Specific Plan area. Trees shall be consistent with the character of the area or the historic character of the site. At maturity, the trees shall be of a sufficient size to screen the proposed structures.
Initial plantings shall be no less than 15-gallon cans. • 4.1-7. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, a lighting plan shall be submitted to the City of Simi Valley Department of Environmental Services and Department of Public Works. The plan shall be prepared by a lighting consultant and incorporate recommended guidelines (0.5 foot-candle [the minimum parking lot security level] as a threshold for spill and the minimum streetlamp glare level of 1.0 footcandle). • 4.1-8. When installed, test and adjust all street lighting fixtures to ensure that light levels do not exceed 1.0 foot -candle of glare and 0.5 footcandle (or other lighting standards or guidelines) of spill at the prope rty lines. Testing of street lighting fixtures shall be conducted by factory-trained and employed technicians only. 972
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-8
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
3.1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
AESTHETICS – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As with the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would alter views of the Project Site for some off -site public viewpoints that would have partial views of residential development within the Project Site with implementation of the Proposed Project instea d of the relatively unobstructed views of natural open space that they have in pre -project conditions, with views of hillsides, ridgelines, and canyons that are located in the Project Site.
The 2011 EIR disclosed that the Approved Project would result in direct impacts to a total of 790.72 acres of land. The Proposed Project would impact a total of 305.22 acres of land, which is a reduction in impacts of 485.50 acres (Chambers Group, 2024a). Given the reduced footprint and extent of the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project would result in reduced permanent impacts related to scenic vistas than would the Approved Project.
Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would result in short -term visual impacts including impacts associated with views of grading and construction activity. Given the reduced footprint and extent of grading for the Proposed Project, the Pro posed Project would result in reduced temporary impacts related to scenic vistas than would the Approved Project.
As was the case for the Approved Project, the Proposed Project has been designed to occur generally at the canyon bottoms and lower elevations in the Project Site to avoid visual impacts, which allows for the higher elevations in the Project Site to remain as open space. 973
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-9
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
As with the Approved Project , the Proposed Project would not substantially alter off -site views of the Whiteface Escarpment, which occurs in the Project Site, or other visual features in the Project Site such as the ridgelines of Dry and Tapo Canyons and the smaller ridgelines of the drainages within these canyons. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with City’s Hillside Performance Standards (HPS), which would minimize aesthetic impacts.
As with the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would be required to implement mitigation measures 4.1-1 through 4.1-6 from the 2011 EIR.
In conclusion, the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts related to this threshold.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis . Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would generally limit grading activities to low -lying areas within the Project Site, leaving higher elevations and steep slopes as undeveloped open space . The Proposed Project would preserve the Whiteface Escarpment portion of Big Mountain that lies within the Project Site.
The 2011 EIR described that there were 683 protected trees inventoried in the Project Site, pursuant to the requirements contained in the City of Simi Valley’s Development Code . The 2011 EIR disclosed that there would be 366 City -protected trees that would need to be directly impacted and/or removed in the Project Site as a result of the Approved Project. The Proposed Project would require the removal of 55 protected trees and the relocation of 61 protected trees.
The Proposed Project would be required to implement mitigation measures and adhere to Simi Valley Municipal Code requirements, which would reduce visual impacts related to tree removals. Specifically, the Applicant would be required to implement mitigation measures from the 2011 EIR , including mitigation measures 4.3-30 through 4.3 -47, which provide specifications on replacement tree planting.
In conclusion, the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts related to this threshold.
c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict wi th applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would result in temporary impacts to visual character related to views of an active construction site for adjacent residential land uses. 974
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-10
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
Also, the Proposed Project would alter long-term visual character of the Project Site through the introduction of development, as would the Approved Project. As with the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would consist of the development of low-density and estate - density residential uses , which would be visually consistent with existing residential development near the Project Site.
The 2011 EIR disclosed that the Approved Project would result in direct impacts to a total of 790.72 acres of land. The Proposed Project would impact a total of 305.22 acres of land, which is a reduction in impacts of 485.50 acres (Chambers Group, 2024a). Given the reduced footprint and extent of the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project would result in reduced temporary and permanent impacts related to visual character than would the Approved Project.
In conclusion, the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts related to this threshold.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis . The Proposed Project would result in increased lighting through the use of vehicle headlights, street lights, fixed outdoor lights, and other light sources common to urban areas. Daytime sources of potential glare including sun reflecting off of glass and other building materials i s also anticipated to result from the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would be required to implement mitigation measures 4.1-7 and 4.1 -8. Given the reduced development proposed when comparing the Approved Project to the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project would result in reduced impacts related to nighttime lighting and glare.
In conclusion, the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts related to this threshold.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would not result in any new or substantially increased effects related to aesthetics that were not already previously evaluated and disclosed in the 2011 EIR that was prepared for the Approved Project . Mitigation measures from the 2011 EIR relating to aesthetics continue to apply ; however, no new mitigation measures are proposed as a part of the Proposed Project that would result in any new impacts that were not previously evaluated in the 2011 EIR.
975
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-11
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
3.2 AIR QUALITY
3.2.1 2011 EIR
The 2011 EIR described that implementation of the Approved Project would generate both construction-related and operation-related pollutant emissions.
The 2011 EIR found that the Approved Project would generate construction -related emissions through the use of on -site stationary sources, heavy -duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use. The 2011 EIR described that operation - related emissions would be g enerated by on -site and off -site stationary sources and by mobile sources. The 2011 EIR found that with the implementation of recommended construction control measures, short-term construction air quality impacts of the Approved Project would be considered less than significant.
The 2011 EIR found that single -family residential land uses, golf courses, and community - serving retail uses do not typically emit objectionable odors. Facilities such as wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, petroleum refineries, and chemical manufacturing plants are the typical types of land uses that would emit objectionable odors. The 2011 EIR described that none of these types of facilities are located in the vicinity of the Project Site.
Therefore, the 2011 EIR determined that the Approved Project would have less than significant impacts related to exposing people to objectionable odors.
The 2011 EIR found that the population growth attributed to the Approved Project is within Ventura Council of Government growth forecasts that form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 2011 EIR determined that because the Approved Project is within the AQMP growth forecasts for the City, the Approved Project would also be consistent with the AQMP, indicating that approval and implementation of the Approved Project would not jeopardize attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards in Ventura County. The increase in emissions generated by the Approved Project would not exceed the City of Simi Valley’s 13.7 tons-per- day threshold for ROC and NOX. Because the basin is classified as in serious nonattainment for the federal 8-hour O3 standards, a project that creates individually significant air quality impacts would also contribute to cumulatively significant air impacts. The 2011 EIR found that as the Approved Project is part of the greater Whiteface Specific Plan, and the environmental analysis for the Whiteface Specific Plan determined that the Whiteface Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, the Approved Project would be considered cumulatively significant.
The 2011 EIR found that the Approved Project would not cause any of the studied intersections to fall below accepted operational levels of service. The buildout traffic analysis conducted for the Approved Project was based on the City of Simi Valley General Plan buildout which includes estimated traffic growth associated with buildout of the Simi Valley General Plan Land Use Element and anticipated regional growth. The buildout traffic forecasts also incorporate the expected roadway network development with in the vicinity of the Project Site , including any planned improvements that the City of Simi Valley will undertake on local roadways in the future. Hence, the project-specific CO discussion applies 976
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-12
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
equally to the cumulative condition. Of the 17 intersections evaluated in the traffic impact analysis for the Approved Project as a part of the 2011 EIR, none of the intersections would operate at or below LOS E or LOS F. Therefore, since all of the study intersections will perform at LOS D and above for existing traffic conditions plus Approved Project and existing traffic conditions plus buildout plus Approved Project, under VCAPCD guidelines none of the intersections qualified for a CO -hotspot screening analysis. The 2011 EIR found that the Approved Project would not result in an increase in CO levels equal to or greater than 20 ppm (parts per million) for the 1-hour state standard, or 9.0 ppm (parts per million) for the 8-hour state standard at the edge of the roadway or beyond. The 2011 EIR found that the Approved Project’s impacts related to air quality emissions associated with vehicular congestion and LOS would be considered less than significant.
As discussed in the 2011 EIR, although mitigation measures would reduce operational emissions, long-term impacts associated with the Approved Project would contribute to air quality deterioration as the Whiteface Specific Plan as a whole would generate pollutant emissions in excess of ROC and NOx thresholds. Therefore, the 2011 EIR determined that the Approved Project’s air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Additionally, the 2011 EIR found that the Approved Project’s contribution to cumu lative GHG emissions would contribute to a cumulative impact on global climate change. While no agency had adopted numerical significance thresholds for GHG emissions at the time the 2011 EIR was prepared, several agencies had proposed draft thresholds at that time, which were less than the Approved Project’s GHG emissions. As such, in the absence of definitive and final guidance adopted by the State, the 2011 EIR concluded that the Approved Project would have a significant cumulative impact on climate change.
Mitigation Program
• 4.2-1. During construction, the contractors shall implement the following control measures provided in the VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines to minimize the generation of fugitive dust (PM10), ROC, and NOX:
o The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized to the extent practicable to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
o Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the areas to be graded or excavated before grading or excavation operations commences.
Application of water (preferably reclaimed or nonpotable, if available) should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. o Fugitive dust produced during grading excavation and construction activities shall be controlled by the following activities: (a) All trucks shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicles Code Section 23114. (b) All graded and ex cavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved onsite roadways, shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization material, and/or roll -compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as 977
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-13
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
often as necessary and reclaimed or non -potable water shall be used whenever possible.
o Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll -compaction, and environmentally safe dust -control materials, shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with e nvironmentally safe dust suppressants to prevent excessive fugitive dust.
o Signs limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less shall be posted on site. o During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth -moving, and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off site or on site. The site superintendent/supervisor shall use discretion in conjunction with the VCAPCD in determining when winds are excessive.
o Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads.
o Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors, should be advised to wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations.
• 4.2-2. During construction, contractors shall comply with the following measures, as feasible, to reduce NOX and ROC from heavy equipment as recommended by the VCAPCD in its Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines:
o Minimize equipment idling time.
o Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturer’s specifications.
o Lengthen the construction period during smog season (May through October) to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. o Use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric, if feasible. • 4.2-3. The project shall contribute to a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) fund to be used to develop regional programs to offset air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the project. The total amount that would be contributed to an off -site TDM fund shall be based on a prorated amount. The prorated amount shall be calculated as a percentage of the total emissions by dividing the ROC and NOx emissions generated by this project, as shown in Table 4.2 -12, by the ROC and NOX emissions generated by the Whiteface Specific Plan, as shown in Table 4.2 -6. TDM 978
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-14
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
funds shall be calculated based upon the methodology described in the VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines. The VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines recommend that all development projects with significant air quality impacts fully mitigate excess emissions through funding measures for at least three years, after buildout. The project shall pay its fair share contribution of the cost to the TDM of the Whiteface Specific Plan for both ROC (9.02 percent of the Whiteface Plan) and NOx (6.79 percent of the Whiteface Specific Plan); Table 4.2 -13 shows the percentage of the emissions that the project is estimated to emit relative to the Whiteface Specific Plan.
The estimated fee (in 2009 dollars) is calculated for a three year period to be $294,773 (based on $6.81 per pound per day ROC exceeded times 39.53 lbs/day (7.21 tpy) exceeded/day times 365 days operated per year times 3 years after buildout = $294,773 for ROC and $9.91 per pound per day NOx exceeded times 22.51 lbs/day (4.11 tpy) exceeded/day times 365 days operated per year times 3 years after buildout = $244,266). While the cost of the off-site TDM fund is calculated separately for ROC and NOx, the amount is based on only the higher of the two costs since funding will result in mitigation programs that reduce both pollutants.
Payment of fees shall be re -calculated, based on the VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines and amounts in effect, at the time final tract maps are approved and occur prior to issuance of building permits.
• 4.2-4. Only natural gas fireplaces shall be installed into new residential units. • 4.2-5. To the degree feasible, the project shall implement measures from the BuildItGreen GreenPoint Checklist included in the guidelines to an extent sufficient to score an overall Green Building rating for new residential structures. These guidelines include, but are not limited to, the f ollowing measures that could be selectively implemented by the Project Site development team in the construction of the 364 residential units, deletion of the existing golf course (Shadow Golf Course), and the privatization of the second existing golf course on premises (Sky Golf Course).
Application of the GreenPoint Checklist, using the following guidelines, is designated to reduce environmental impacts in regard to GHG emissions:
o Protect topsoil and minimize disruption of existing plants and trees. o Recycle construction waste (including Green Waste).
o Use recycled-content aggregate (minimum 25 percent).
o Replace Portland cement in concrete with recycled fly ash or slag. o Construct resource-efficient landscapes.
o Minimize turf areas in landscape installed by the developer. o Plant shade trees.
o Group plants by water needs (Hydrozoning).
o Install high-efficiency irrigation systems.
979
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-15
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
o Use 50 percent salvaged or recycled -content materials for 50 percent of non - plant landscape areas.
o Use FSC-certified wood.
o Use solid wall systems (Includes SIPs, ICFs, and any non -stick frame assembly).
o Design energy heels on roof trusses (75 percent of attic insulation height at outside edge of exterior wall).
o Use recycled-content steel studs for 90 percent of interior wall framing. o Thermal mass walls: 5/8 -inch drywall on all interior walls or walls weighing more than 40 pounds/cubic feet.
o Use recycled-content (no virgin plastic) or FSC-certified decking. o Install insulation with 75 percent recycled content.
o Inspect quality of insulation installation before applying drywall. o Distribute domestic hot water efficiently.
o Install only high-efficiency toilets (dual-flush or 1.3 gallons per flush [gpf]). o Design and install HVAC Systems to ACCA Manual J, D, and S recommendations. o Install zoned, hydronic radiant heating with slab insulation. o Install high efficiency air conditioning with environmentally responsible refrigerants.
o Design and install effective ductwork.
o Install high-efficiency HVAC filters (MERV 6+).
o Do not install fireplaces or install sealed gas fireplaces with efficiency ratings of not less than 60 percent using CSA standards.
o Install mechanical fresh air ventilation systems.
o Pre-plumb for solar water heating.
o Install solar water heating systems.
o Install wiring conduit for Future Photovoltaic installation and provide 200 feet of south-facing roofing.
o Install Photovoltaic (PV) panels.
o Use recycled-content paint.
o Use environmentally preferable materials for interior finish: (a) FSC -certified Wood (b) Reclaimed (c) Rapidly renewable (d) Recycled-content or (e) Finger- jointed.
o Use environmentally preferable flooring: (a) FSC -certified Wood, (b) Reclaimed, (c) Rapidly Renewable, (d) Recycled -Content, (e) Exposed Concrete.
980
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-16
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
3.2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The responses in this section are based on an Air Quality Technical Memorandum that was prepared for the Proposed Project by Michael Baker International in February 2025.
Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2011 EIR demonstrated the Approved Project’s consistency with the 2008 AQMP, which was the latest AQMP when the 2011 EIR was prepared. This was done by comparing actual population growth with the projected growth rates used in the 2008 AQMP. The 2011 EIR evaluated the Approved Project based on its location in the Simi Valley Growth Area. The 1995 AQMP forecasted a population of 131,207 for 2005. By June 30, 2009, the population was estimated at 123,751.
The City of Simi Valley’s Managed-Growth Plan projected a 2010 population of 131,205. The 2011 EIR concluded that the population was below both the VCAPCD and the City’s projections when the 2011 EIR was prepared, and therefore the population would be consistent with the 2008 AQMP, indicating less than significant impacts related to this threshold. Additionally, the 2011 EIR concluded that the Approved Project conformed to the City of Simi Valley General Plan , ensuring consistency with the 2008 AQMP. The 2011 EIR also concluded that the Approved Project would implement several emission -reduction strategies from the 2008 AQMP. These strategies included extending public bicycle paths and multi-use trails to encourage biking and walking. Recreational uses would be designed to promote non-vehicular transportation like walking and golf cart usage. Multi-purpose trails for pedestrians, non -motorized bicycles, and electric carts would be provided, along with parking for bicycles and electric vehicles in common areas. Overall, th e Approved P roject would align with the 2008 AQMP emission -reduction strategies ; as such, the 2011 EIR determined that the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact on air quality standards.
981
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-17
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
Population growth rates are indicators of future emissions from population -related categories. The VCAPCD’s Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (dated October 2003) recommend using the most recent AQMP population forecasts for consistency analyses. In order to reduce emissions, the VCAPCD adopted the 2022 AQMP which establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving State and Federal air quality standards. The AQMP is a regional and multi - agency effort including the VCAPCD, CARB, SCAG, and EPA. The 2022 AQMP was adopted by the VCAPCD on December 13, 2022, and incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the growth assumptions from SCAG 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS, and emission inventory methodologies for various source categories.
According to VCAPCD’s Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, project consistency with the 2022 AQMP can be determined by comparing the actual population growth in the County with the projected growth rates used in the 2022 AQMP. The projected growth rate in population is used as an indicator of future emissions from population-related emission categories in the 2022 AQMP. These emission estimates are used, in part, to project the date by which the County will attain the federal ozone standard.
The Proposed Project would internally relocate 180 dwelling units from Dry Canyon and Tapo Canyon, south of Lost Canyons Drive, to the area of the Project Site that is located north of Lost Canyons Drive. This would reflect a zero -sum net change in the total number of dwelling units between the Proposed Project and the Approved Project and would be an equal transfer of units within the overall tentative tract map area. The overall total dwelling units would remain at 364 single-family dwelling units with the Proposed Project. Given that the number and type of residential units proposed would not change, the estimated population growth anticipated from the Proposed Project also would not change. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to result in population growth in exceedance of what was predicted for the County of Ventura, and the project would be consistent with the 2022 AQMP
In conclusion, the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts related to this threshold.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2011 EIR quantified the construction and operational emissions of the Approved Project and compared them to the VCAPCD’s regional significance thresholds. It stated that neither the City nor the VCAPCD identified construction as a cause of significant air quality impacts, provided that standard construction control measures were implemented during construction activities. The 2011 EIR concluded that emissions during construction of the Approved Project would not exceed VCAPCD’s thresholds for VOC and NOx with the recommended construction control measures in place.
982
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-18
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
Long-term operational impacts from mobile and stationary sources associated with the implementation of the Approved Project were analyzed and calculated using the Urban Emission (URBEMIS) 2007 computer model as a part of the development of the 2011 EIR .
The operational modeling conducted for the 2011 EIR assumed that all 364residential units would use natural gas appliances and that all 364 of the units would include natural gas fireplaces. The 2011 EIR concluded that operational emissions from the Approved Project would not exceed the applicable VCAPCD’s thresholds for the City of Simi Valley. However, the prior environmental analysis of the entire Specific Plan determined that the Specific Plan as a whole would exceed the City’s thresholds for VOC and NOx. Therefor e, the air quality impacts of the Approved Project were considered significant as part of the overall Specific Plan project.
The 2011 EIR determined that the Approved Project would have reduced impacts related to this threshold with implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ -4. However, long-term impacts associated with the Approved Project would continue to contribute to air quality deterioration, as the Specific Plan as a whole would generate pollutant emissions in excess of VOC and NOx thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to this threshold would remain significant and unavoidable.
Construction
Short-term air quality impacts are predicted to occur during demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating operations associated with implementation of the Proposed Project. Temporary air emissions would result from the following activities:
• Particulate (fugitive dust) emissions from grading and building construction; and • Exhaust emissions from the construction equipment, hauling trucks, and motor vehicles of the construction crew.
The 364 residential buildings that would be constructed as a part of the Proposed Project would occur in two phases. Phase 1 of the Proposed Project is anticipated to begin in 2026 and would include demolition, grading, building construction, and architectural coating activities. Phase 2 construction activities for the Proposed Project are anticipated to begin in 2027 and would include grading, building construction, and architectural coating activities.
The Proposed Project would demolish approximately 31,300 square feet of buildings during demolition overall. Earthwork would be balanced on-site. Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction activities for the Proposed Project are assumed to overlap and total emissions during the overlapping construction activities were also calculated for the Proposed Project as a part of the Air Quality Technical Memo. The Air Quality Technical Memorandum includes estimated construction criteria pollutant emissions of VOC (ROG), NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 for the Proposed Project.
The Proposed Project’s proposed density transfer of 180 lots would occur internally within the Specific Plan area (i.e., the Project Site) and therefore, would not result in an addition or reduction of land uses compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR. 983
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-19
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
Further, the 2011 EIR assumed construction would occur between the year 2011 and 2016.
As a result of the passage of time, t he Proposed Project would generate lower construction emissions than were previously calculated for the Approved Project in the 2011 EIR, due to improved emission standards, cleaner fuel, and more efficient engines of the construction equipment.
Furthermore, the quantity of grading (e.g., the overall cubic yardage of cut and fill) and the acreage of land to be graded with the Proposed Project would be less than for the Approved Project. As such, overall construction emissions would be reduced for the Proposed Project when compared to the Approved Project.
Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the vicinity of the Project Site . Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut -and-fill, and truck travel on unpaved roadways.
Fugitive dust emissions coming from a construction site typically vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, sp ecific operations, and weather conditions.
Fugitive dust from grading and construction is expected to be short -term and would cease upon completion of construction activities.
Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particular health concern is the amount of PM10 generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions. PM10 poses a serious healt h hazard alone or in combination with other pollutants. PM2.5 is mostly produced by mechanical processes.
These include automobile tire wear, industrial processes such as cutting and grinding, and re-suspension of particles from the ground or road surfaces by wind and human activities such as construction or agriculture. PM2.5 is mostly derived from combustion sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and other vehicle exhaust, as well as from stationary sources. These particles are either directly emitted or a re formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of gases such as NOX and sulfur oxides (SOX) combining with ammonia. PM2.5 components from material in the earth’s crust, such as dust, are also present, with the amount varying in different locations
The Proposed Project would implement required VCAPCD dust control techniques (i.e., daily watering), limitations on construction hours, and would adhere to VCAPCD Rule 55 (watering of inactive and active perimeters, truck hauling requirements, track out requirements, etc.), to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from the Project Site during construction. The VCAPCD has not established PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance; however, the Proposed Project would comply with the applicable dust reduction strateg ies as per the VCAPCD Rule 55 to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from the Project Site during construction. Thus, consistent with the air quality impact analysis conclusions for the Approved Project that were included in the 2011 EIR, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions impacts associated with construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. 984
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-20
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust
Exhaust emissions (e.g., NOx and CO) from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on -site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to/from the site. Consistent with the air quality impact analysis conclusions for the Approved Project included in the 2011 EIR , air quality impacts from equipment and vehicle exhaust emissions for the Proposed Project would also be less than significant.
ROG Emissions
In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. As required, all architectural coatings for the Proposed Project’s structures would comply with VCAPCD Rule 74.2. Rule
74.2, which provides specifications on painting practices as well as regulates the ROG content of paint to not exceed 50 grams per liter. Consistent with the impact findings in the 2011 EIR for the Approved Project, ROG emissions impacts for the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
Total Construction Emissions
As depicted in the Air Quality Technical Memorandum, the estimated total annual construction emissions of VOC (ROG), NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 for the Proposed Project is anticipated to be less than what was previously evaluated in the 2011 EIR for the Approved Project.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are human health hazards when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by state, federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by CARB in 1986. Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed . At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially h armful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed.
According to the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report (August 2000), serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within the vicinity of the project site. Thus, the Proposed Project would have no impact related to naturally-occurring asbestos. 985
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-21
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
Operations
Long-term air quality impacts including mobile source emissions generated from project - related traffic (i.e., motor vehicle use by residents and guests), and emissions from area and energy sources were evaluated for the Proposed Project within the Air Quality Technical Memorandum. Overall, the Proposed Project’s proposed density transfer of 180 lots would occur internally within the Specific Plan area (i.e., the Project Site). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in an addition or reduction of l and uses compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2011 EIR.
Mobile Source
Mobile sources ar e emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all po llutants of regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport SOX, PM10, and PM2.5).
However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.
Project-generated vehicle emissions have been estimated for the Proposed Project as a part of the Air Quality Technical Memorandum using CalEEMod. The Proposed Project would result in an increase in daily trips from the 2,840 net new daily trips that were anticipated for the Approved Project to a total of 3,483 trips per day that are anticipated to be generated by the Proposed Project.
Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions would result for the Proposed Project from consumer products and architectural coatings.
The Proposed Project would reduce its operational air quality emissions through the universal use of all electric landscaping equipment. However, this design feature has not been accounted in the modeling as a conservative analysis.
Energy Source Emissions
Energy source air quality emissions would be generated by electricity and natural gas (non- hearth) usage associated with the Proposed Project . The primary use of energy by the Proposed Project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. The Proposed P roject would install high efficiency lighting, appliances, and solar ready roofs. However, as a conservative analysis, these project design features were not accounted in the modeling conducted as a part of the Proposed Project’s Air Quality Technical Memorandum.
986
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-22
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
Total Operational Emissions
Given that the Proposed Project reflects a zero -sum net change in the total number of dwelling units within the Project Site , the Proposed P roject would not result in any new operational air quality impacts compared to what was evaluated in the 2011 EIR.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts related to this threshold.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2011 EIR concluded that the Approved Project would result in a less than significant impact related to CO hotspots since the Approved Project would not generate traffic that would contribute to potential adverse traffic impacts that may result in the formation of CO hotspots. As a part of the development of the 2011 EIR , a Health Risk Assessment was prepared for the Approved Project to determine potential health risks associated with construction from the Approved Project, which concluded that the Approved Project would result in less than significant health impacts due to the short period of construction and due to the lack of toxic air contaminants sources within the Project Site during operation.
The 2011 EIR analyzed impacts for the Approved Project related to Valley Fever. The 2011 EIR concluded that construction activities for the Approved Project during rainy winters, springs, or after wind and dust storms can expose workers to Valley Fever spores present in the soil. This exposure can lead to potentially significant health impacts for construction workers and others in the vicinity of the Project Site . The 2011 EIR included Mitigation Measures 4.6 -7 through 4.6 -9, which required use of respirat ors and air -conditioned equipment cabs during clearing, grading, and excavation, treating construction roads with dust control agents, wetting unpaved roads twice daily to minimize dust , control of weed growth by mowing instead of discing to keep the ground undisturbed, with mulch covering used when possible. Therefore, with the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts related to Valley Fe ver during construction of the Approved Project were determined would be less than significant.
Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive recept ors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and c hronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.
The closest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are the residential parcels located approximately 150 feet west (approximately 150 feet from the impact limits for the Proposed Project) that is known as Glenmeadow neighborhood. 987
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-23
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
Localized Air Quality Health Impacts
Construction
The Proposed Project’s construction activities would involve the operation of diesel - powered equipment, which would emit Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM). In 1998, the CARB identified diesel exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). Cancer health risks associated with exposures to diesel exhaust typically are associ ated with chronic exposure, in which a 30-year exposure period often is assumed. The Proposed Project would be constructed over two phases for a period of approximately five years. The Proposed Project would comply with the VCAPCD Rule 57.1, which requires fuel burning equipment to not emit particulate matter emissions exceeding 0.12 pounds per million British thermal unit (BTU) of fuel input.
Compliance with VCAPCD Rule 57.1 would reduce the amount of DPM emissions from the construction of the Proposed Project.
As previously discussed, the closest sensitive receptors are single-family residences located approximately 150 feet to the west of the Project Site. The Proposed Project would generate lower construction emissions than previously calculated for the Approved Project in the 2011 EIR, due to improved emission standards, cleaner fuel, and more efficient engines of the construction equipment. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any additional localized air quality impact than those impacts that were previously disclosed in the 2011 EIR Furthermore, the 2011 EIR concluded that the cancer risk resulting from the Approved Project’s construction activities would not exceed the VCAPCD significance threshold. As the Proposed Project would generate lower construction emissions than the Approved Project , construc tion of the Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in an elevated cancer risk to nearby sensitive receptors.
Operation
The Proposed Project would involve the transfer of 180 single-family residential dwelling units. Residential development would result in very limited operational activities with potential health risks, including landscaping maintenance operations when required. These activities would not result in the generation of excessive TAC emissions, or associated health risks during operation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project would not result in an elevated cancer risk to nearby sensitive receptors.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Carbon Monoxide ( CO) emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (i.e., adversely affecti ng residents, school children, hospital patients, the elderly, etc.). The VCAPCD requires a quantified assessment of CO hotspots when a project would gen erate indirect emissions greater than the applicable ozone project significance thresholds (25 pounds per day of NOX and ROG), and may significantly impact roadway intersections that are currently operating at, or are expected to operate at, Levels of Service (LOS) E or F. 988
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-24
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
Because traffic congestion is highest at intersections where vehicles queue and are subject to reduced speeds, these CO hot spots are typically produced at intersections.
According to the Transportation Memorandum that was prepared for the Proposed Project, the local roadway (Lost Canyon s Road) is classified as LOS A. Furthermore, none of the analyzed local roadways evaluated in the Transportation Memo randum would operate at LOS E or F under existing or future conditions, and the low volume of traffic (a maximum of 3,483 average daily trips) generated as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project would not significantly impact analyzed roadway intersections. Therefor e, according to the VCAPCD guidelines, the Proposed Project does not require a quantified assessment of CO hotspots.
Valley Fever
As discussed above, the City and the Project Site are in an area designated as suspected endemic for Valley Fever by the CDC. Nearby sensitive receptors as well as construction workers could be exposed to Valley Fever from fugitive dust generated during construction of the Proposed Project. The VCAPCD has no recommended threshold for a significant Valley Fever impact. Further, the Proposed P roject would be required to comply with 2011 EIR Mitigation Measures 4.6 -7 through 4.6 -9, which require the use of res pirators and air - conditioned equipment cabs during clearing, grading, and excavation for the Proposed Project as well as the treating of construction roads with dust control agents, and the wetting of unpaved roads twice daily to minimize dust and control, and by mowing instead of discing to keep the ground undisturbed, and by using mulch covering when possible.
In conclusion, the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts related to this threshold.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2011 EIR proposed a master-planned community that would include private open spaces, multi-purpose public recreation trails, a private park, and up to 364 single -family detached homes. Since single -family homes, golf courses, and community -serving retail uses typically do not emit objectionable odors, and no od or-emitting facilities like wastewater treatment plants or refineries are nearby, the 2011 EIR determined that the Approved Project w ould not generate or experience significant objectionable odors.
Construction
Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project may generate detectable odors from heavy -duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, construction - related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon completion of construction. In addition, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by requiring equipment to be shut off when not in use or by 989
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-25
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
limiting idling time to no more than five minutes. Compliance with these existing regulations would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy -duty equipment exhaust. The Proposed Project would also be required to comply with the VCAPCD Rule 74.2, which requires that the VOC contents of paints to not exceed 50 grams per liter. Further, any odor impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short -term and negligible. As such, the Proposed P roject would not result in other emissions (such as those leadi ng to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Operation
According to VCAPCD’s Gu idelines, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting, chemical plants, fiberglass operations, food processing facilities, dairies, rendering plants, refineries, and agricultural uses. The Proposed Project involves construction and operation of residential uses and does not include any uses identified by the VCAPCD as being associated with odors. As such, operation of the Proposed Project would not generate odors that would impact nearby receptors. As such, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
In conclusion, the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts related to this threshold.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would not result in any new or substantially increased effects related to air quality that were not already previously evaluated and disclosed in the 2011 EIR that was prepared for the Approved Project. Mitigation measures from the 2011 EIR relating to air quality continue to apply; however, no new mitigation measures are proposed as a part of the Proposed Project that would result in any new impacts that were not previously evaluated in the 2011 EIR.
990
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-26
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.3.1 2011 EIR
Special Status Plants
The 2011 EIR described that there were n o special -status plants observed within the Approved Project’s grading footprint; however, the 2011 EIR described that several special- status plant species had a moderate or high potential to occur. As such, the 2011 EIR specified that if special-status plants are present within the disturbance area, grading or development of the Approved Project would potentially be considered a significant impact prior to implementation of mitigation. Mitigation measure 4.3-1 was required for the Approved Project, required that a focused special-status plant survey be conducted within one year prior to the development of the Project Site for identifying potentially occurring special-status plants and during the typical blooming period of such plants prior to development or grading of the Project Site. If any special-status plant species are discovered on the Project Site during the focused surveys (or during any other on -site assessments), Mitigation measure 4.3-1 requires that a Native Plant Mitigation Plan (NPMP) be developed that identifies methods for preserving special -status plant species at a 1:1 ratio within suitable habitats that w ould be preserved on the Project Site , or options for propagating those species that would be impacted within suitable habitats located within the proposed open space areas, but outside of fuel management zones, within the Project Site.
Special Status Animals
The 2011 EIR described the Approved Project’s impacts to Coast horned lizard, coastal western whiptail , western spadefoot toad, southwestern pond turtle, two -striped garter snake, Cooper’s hawk, sharp -shinned hawk, white -tailed kite, Lawrence’s goldfinch, Bell’s sage sparrow, and Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow.
The 2011 EIR identified that the loss of active raptor nests as a result of the Approved Project’s construction activities may be in conflict with Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Sections 3503 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code if not mitigated. As such, these actions were considered in the 2011 EIR to be a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation. With implementation of mitigation measure 4.3 -4, which requires nesting bird surveys be conducted in certain situations and that nesting birds be avoided, impacts related to this species would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The 2011 EIR disclosed that the Approved Project would result in impacts to suitable habitat for southwestern pond turtle and that this species has potential to occur in the Project Site.
Therefore, the 2011 EIR included mitigation measure 4.3 -2, which requires that focused surveys for western spadefoot toad, two -striped garter snake, and western pond turtle be conducted in consultation with CDFW and that if any of these species are identif ied in the Project Site that sensitive species protection plans be prepared and approved by CDFW prior to beginning construction. With implementation of this measure, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level for this species.
991
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-27
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
The 2011 EIR disclosed that the Approved Project would result in impacts to suitable habitat for coastal whiptail, which had been observed in the Project Site. Mitigation measure 4.3-5 was specified requiring preconstruction coastal whiptail surveys, which would reduce impacts related to this species.
The 2011 EIR disclosed that the Approved Project would result in impacts to suitable habitat for coast horned lizard, which had been observed in the Project Site. Mitigation measure 4.3- 5 was specified requiring preconstruction coast horned lizard surveys, which would reduce impacts related to this species.
The 2011 EIR disclosed that the Approved Project would result in impacts to suitable habitat for western spadefoot toad, which had been observed in the Project Site. Therefore, the 2011 EIR included mitigation measure 4.3 -2, which requires that focused surveys for western spadefoot toad, two -striped garter snake, and western pond turtle be conducted in consultation with CDFW and that if any of these species are identified in the Project Site that sensitive species protection plans be prepared and approved by CDFW prior to beginning construction. With implementation of this measure, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level for this species.
The 2011 EIR disclosed that the Approved Project would result in impacts to suitable habitat for two-striped garter snake, which has potential to occur in the Project Site. Therefore, the 2011 EIR included mitigation measure 4.3 -2, which requires that focused surveys for western spadefoot toad, two-striped garter snake, and western pond turtle be conducted in consultation with CDFW and that if any of these species are identified in the Project Site that sensitive species protection plans be prepared and app roved by CDFW prior to beginning construction. With implementation of this measure, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level for this species.
The 2011 EIR found that the Approved Project would not result in any anticipated impacts to southwestern willow flycatcher given the species has never been observed on the Project Site or in the vicinity and because the Project Site only had fragmented riparian corridors that could serve as suitable habitat for this species.
Related to least Bell’s vireo, the 2011 EIR disclosed that the Project Site contained areas of suitable habitat for this species, including patches within Tapo Canyon Creek, and that least Bell’s vireo had been observed at other locations in the vicinity of the Project Site. Although the 2011 EIR stated that the habitat in the Project Site was not ideal, the 2011 EIR disclosed that the Approved Project would result in potentially significant impacts prior to implementation of mitigation. Therefore, the 2011 EIR included mitigation measure 4.3-3, which requires that within one year prior to the grading or other proposed disturbances to Tapo Canyon Creek, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct least Bell’s vireo surveys, in accordance with USFWS protocol s. Mitigation measure 4.3-3 requires that if construction activities occur within the nesting season of the least Bell’s vireo, and if least Bell’s vireo individuals or active nests are observed or detected during protocol surveys, construction activities in the area shall be halted/postponed, and the CDFW and USFWS shall be contacted and informed of the finding immediately. Mitigation measure 4.3 -3 also includes minimum requirements for compensatory mitigation of least Bell’s vireo habitat should it be impacted during construction.
992
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-28
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
Related to coastal California gnatcatcher, the 2011 EIR disclosed that marginal suitable habitat occurred on the Project Site; however, the 2011 EIR pointed out that the coastal California gnatcatcher had few documented occurrences in the Project Site vicinity. The 2011 EIR disclosed that the Approved Project would result in impacts to USFWS -designated critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher given that the entire Project Site has this designation. Given the absence of coastal California gnat catchers in the Project Site as well as due to the limited disturbance that would occur to this species’ suitable habitat, the 2011 EIR determined that the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact related to gnatcatcher with implementation of mitigation . Mitigation measure 4.3 -5 was specified requiring preconstruction surveys be conducted for coastal California gnatcatcher. Also, mitigation measure 4.3-5 includes procedures for the Applicant to follow if coastal California gnatcatcher are encountered.
The 2011 EIR described that the Approved Project would result in impacts to suitable nesting and foraging habitat for white -tailed kite, which has moderate to high potential to occur on the Project Site. With implementation of mitigation measure 4.3-4, which requires nesting bird surveys be conducted in certain situations and that nesting birds be avoided, impacts related to this species would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The 2011 EIR disclosed that the Project Site contained suitable habitat f or burrowing owl and that this species had been previously recorded in the Project Site and nearby vicinity.
Given the Approved Project’s impacts to suitable habitat for burrowing owl, the 2011 EIR identified that this species would be significantly impacted prior to mitigation. Mitigation measure 4.3-5 was specified requiring preconstruction burrowing owl surveys . Mitigation measure 4.3 -5 includes procedures for the Applicant to follo w if burrowing owl are encountered.
The 2011 EIR described that the Approved Project would result in impacts to suitable habitat for northern harrier, which has been previously observed in the Project Site.
The 2011 EIR described that the Approved Project would result in impacts to suitable habitat for yellow warbler, which has been previously observed in the Project Site. With implementation of mitigation measure 4.3 -4, which requires nesting bird surveys be conducted in certain situations and that nesting birds be avoided, impacts related to this species would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The 2011 EIR described that the Approved Project would result in impacts to suitable foraging habitat for grasshopper sparrow, which has been previously observed in the Project Site. With implementation of mitigation measure 4.3-4, which requires nesting bird surveys be conducted in certain situations and that nesting birds be avoided, impacts related to this species would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The 2011 EIR described that the Approved Project would result in impacts to suitable habitat for double-crested cormorant which has been previously observed in the Project Site. With implementation of mitigation measure 4.3 -4, which requires nesting bird surveys be conducted in certain situations and that nesting birds be avoided, impacts related to this species would be reduced to less than significant levels. 993
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-29
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
The 2011 EIR described that the Approved Project would result in impacts to suitable habitat for sharp-shinned hawk and Cooper’s hawk, which have been previously observed in the Project Site. With implementation of mitigation measure 4.3 -4, which requires nesting bird surveys be conducted in certain situations and that nesting birds be avoided, impacts related to this species would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The 2011 EIR described that the Approved Project would result in impacts to suitable habitat for southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, which has been previously observed in the Project Site. With implementation of mitigation measure 4.3 -4, which requires nesting bird surveys be conducted in certain situations and that nesting birds be avoided, impacts related to this species would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The 2011 EIR described that the Approved Project would result in impacts to suitable habitat for Bells’ sage sparrow, which has been previously observed in the Project Site . With implementation of mitigation measure 4.3 -4, which requires nesting bird surveys be conducted in certain situations and that nesting birds be avoided, impacts related to this species would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The 2011 EIR described that the Approved Project would result in impacts to suitable habitat for Lawrence’s goldfinch. With implementation of mitigation measure 4.3-4, which requires nesting bird surveys be conducted in certain situations and that nesting birds be avoided, impacts related to this species would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The 2011 EIR disclosed that the Project Site contained suitable habitat for San Diego desert woodrat, and that this species had been previously recorded in the nearby vicinity of the Project Site. As such, the 2011 EIR found that the Approved Project would result in a significant impact to this species prior to mitigation. Mitigation measure 4.3-5 was specified requiring preconstruction San Diego desert woodrat surveys be conducted.
Common Wildlife Species
The 2011 EIR described that the Approved Project would result in impacts to common wildlife species through construction and grading activities that would directly and indirectly affect habitat for these species. The 2011 EIR determined that because of the common nature and low number of wildlife species that would be displaced or inadvertently lost as a result of construction activities, construction would not reduce regional populations to below self -sustaining levels or otherwise substantially affect the se wildlife species populations. For these reasons, the 2011 EIR found the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts related to common wildlife species.
Nesting Birds
The 2011 EIR identified that the Approved Project would result in impacts to nesting birds that could violate the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Therefore, the 2011 EIR specified mitigation measure 4.3 -4, which requires that the Applicant retain a qualified biologis t to conduct preconstruction nesting bird surveys prior to conducting vegetation removal activities. Also, the mitigation measure 4.3 -4 specifies next-steps if active nests are found including nest avoidance procedures.
994
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-30
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
Increased Light and Glare
The 2011 EIR disclosed that nighttime light ing prior to implementation of the Approved Project that is associated with adjacent residential areas may already adversely affect the resident wildlife associated with the Project Site to some degree . I mplementation of the Approved Project would increase the number of nighttime light sources and the overall amount of lighting . In addition, the 2011 EIR discussed that species that are normally in hiding during the night could become more vulnerable to nighttime predators, thus causing an artificial increase in predation and possible decline in the population levels of certain species. As such, these actions would be considered a potentially significant impact; therefore, measures were specified to mitigate these potential effects. Specifically, the 2011 EIR included mitigation measure 4.3 -9, which requires that all lighting along the perimeter of natural areas of the Project Site be downcast luminaries that are shielded and oriented to prevent spillage and glare into the remaining natural open space areas of the Project Site.
Jurisdictional Waters
The 2011 EIR disclosed that the Approved Project would result in impacts to streams and other jurisdictional waters , which would require the issuance of permits from the CDFW, RWQCB, and USACE. The 2011 EIR identified that the Approved Project would result in impacts to approximately 6.37 acres of jurisdictional waters . As required by mitigation measure 4.3-18 through mitigation measure 4.3-27 from the 2011 EIR, the Applicant would obtain permits from CDFW, RWQCB, and USACE and would negotiate compensatory mitigation with the regulatory agencies prior to conducting work in jurisdictional waters.
Wildlife Movement
The 2011 EIR disclosed that the Approved Project would result in impacts to wildlife movement corridors that occur in the Project Site. The 2011 EIR discussed that the Approved Project would result in fragmentation of existing corridors, and that the Project would result in edge-effects that would reduce the value of wildlife corridors near the Project Site that are not directly impacted b y the Approved Project. To minimize impacts related to wildlife movement, the 2011 EIR required implementation of mitigation measure 4.3 -28, which requires that the Applicant design and construct wildlife crossings as a part of the Approved Project. Also, as required by mitigation measure 4.3-29, the Applicant is required to prepare and implement a Wildlife Habitat Management Plan that shall include provisions for biological monitoring.
Protected Trees
The City of Simi Valley, under the Development Code,62 protects all historic trees, any mature native oak trees that has a diameter of 5 inches or more, and all mature trees which are associated with a proposal for urban development that have a diameter of 9.5 inches or more as measures 4.5 feet above the root crown . The 2011 EIR described that there were 683 protected trees inventoried in the Project Site, pursuant to the requirements contained in the City of Simi Valley’s Development Code, including 208 coast live oak trees and 14 valley oaks. The 2011 EIR disclosed that there would be 366 City-protected trees that would need 995
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-31
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
to be directly impacted and/or removed in the Project Site as a result of the Approved Project. The 2011 EIR found that the remaining 317 City-protected trees in the Project Site would not need to be impacted by the Approved Project . Thus , 46 percent of all trees inventoried for the 2011 EIR would be preserved by the Approved Project . The 2011 EIR found that impacts related to protected trees would be potentially significant; however, with the implementation of mitigation measures and adherence to Simi Valley Municipal Code requirements, that potential impacts related to tree removals would be less than significant.
Specifically, the 2011 EIR required the Applicant to implement mitigation measures 4.3 -30 through 4.3-47, which provide specification on replacement tree planting.
Habitat Conservation Plans
As described in the 2011 EIR, the Project Site is located within the City of Simi Valley, Ventura County. Neither the City, nor the County has established any habitat conservation plans or other approved local or state habitat conservation plans within the vicinity of the Project Site.
Sensitive Natural Communities
The 2011 EIR identified that the Approved Project would result in impacts to sensitive plant communities in the Project Site including Southern Riparian Scrub, Southern Willow Scrub, and Coast Live Oak Woodland. The 2011 EIR also disclosed that the Approved Project would result in impacts to coastal sage scrub, which the 2011 EIR stated: “the variations of coastal sage scrub that are located within the proposed development portions of the project site are not considered a sensitive plant community by CDFG; however, this community supports several special-status wildlife species and potentially some special-status plant species.” As required by mitigation measure s 4.3-17 and 4.3 -19 from the 2011 EIR, the Approved Project would mitigate for impacts to Southern Willow Scrub and Southern Riparian Scrub in accordance with permits issued by CDFW, RWQCB, and USACE As required by mitigation measures 4.3-40, 4.3-42, 4.3-43, and 4.3 -47 in the 2011 EIR, the Approved Projects’ impacts to the Coast Live Oak Woodland vegetation community would be mitigated through the implementation of a n Oak Woodland Regeneration Plan and through implementation of the City’s Tree Ordinance.
Mitigation Program
• 4.3-1. A focused special -status plant survey, in accordance with appropriate CDFW protocols, shall occur within one year prior to the development of the site for identifying potentially occurring special -status plants and during the typical blooming period of such plants prior to development or grading of the Project Site. If any special-status plant species are discovered on the Project Site during the focused surveys (or during any other on -site assessments), a Native Plant Mitigation Plan (NPMP) shall be developed that identifies methods for preserving special-status plant species at a 1:1 ratio within suitable habitats that would be preserved on the Project Site, or options for propagating those species that would be impacted within suitable 996
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-32
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
habitats located within the proposed open space areas, but outside of fuel management zones, within the site. If no suitable on -site locations are available, the NPMP shall identify suitable off -site locations for planting (or transplanting) the impacted s pecial-status plants at a 1:1 ratio in coordination with the CDFW, or appropriate in -lieu fees that may be applicable, as determined by the CDFW. The NPMP shall include location, methods and timing of where, how and when the planting of the special -status species will be implemented. The NPMP shall also identify performance standards by which to measure the success of the mitigation and shall includ e adaptive management procedures to ensure a preservation or replacement, or combination of the two, of a 1:1 ratio. The MMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. • 4.3-2. To avoid potential impacts to the western spadefoot toad, two -striped garter snake and the western pond turtle, a qualified biologist with a CDFW Scientific Collection permit and Memorandum of Understanding shall consult with the CDFW on appropriate survey methods to conduct focused surveys for these species during suitable survey conditions. Focused surveys shall occur within one year prior to the development of the Project Site, but may commence sooner. If any of these species are determined to be present within or adjacent to the proposed development areas, the project applicant shall have a qualified biologist prepare a sensitive species protection plan (SSPP), which must be a pproved by the CDFW prior to the initiation of any ground disturbance or construction activities. The SSPP shall include a relocation protocol and shall identify suitable on -site locations within the preserved open space areas and implement a relocation program to relocate th e species to, or within suitable off-site locations to be approved by the CDFW. The SSPP shall include provisions for monitoring the success of released animals. • 4.3-3. Within one year prior to the grading or other proposed disturbances to Tapo Canyon Creek, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist(s) to conduct least Bell’s vireo surveys, in accordance with USFWS protocols (USFWS 2001). If construction activities occur within the nesting season of the least Bell’s vireo, and if least Bell’s vireo individuals or active nests are observed or detected during protocol surveys, construction activities in the area shall be halted/postponed, and the CDFW and USFWS shall be contacted and informed of the finding immediately. If surveys result in observation of nesting individuals, construction activities within 500 feet of the nest shall not commence until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as determined by a qualified biologist and confirmed by the CDFW and USFWS. In addition, if an active least Bell’s vireo nest is observed, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of nesting habitat by either recreating the impacted riparian habitat on the Project Site or securing through purchase and conservation (through direct placement of a conservation easement over lands, or purchase of lands in a program that has already entered a conservation easement) of suitable riparian habitat within known nesting or foraging areas for the species. Such habitat shall contain southern riparian scrub of a similar or better quality as that within which the active nest was found. The creation/purchase of lands for the acreage of nesting habitat determined to be impacted by the proposed project shall be carried out in coordination with the CDFW and USFWS and on a m inimum ratio of 1:1 or as determined to be appropriate by the wildlife agencies. 997
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-33
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
• 4.3-4. To avoid impacts to nesting birds, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct nest surveys within suitable nesting habitat within the Project Site prior to grading, construction, or site preparation activities. Specifically, within 30 days of initiation of ground disturbance activities associated with construction or grading, a qualified biologist shall conduct weekly surveys to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the MBTA and/or the California Fish and Game Code are present in the construction zone or within 300 feet (500 for raptors or special-status species) of the construction zone, or within suitable distances as determined by the CDFW.
Because many birds known to occur in the project area (such as Cooper’s hawk and several species of hummingbirds) may nest during the late winter, breeding bird surveys shall be carried out both during the typical nesting/breeding bird season (mid-March through September) and in January through early March. The surveys shall continue on a weekly basis, with the last survey being conducted no more than three days prior to initiation of clearance/construction work. If ground disturbance activities are delay ed, then additional pre -construction surveys will be conducted such that no more than three days will have elapsed between the last survey and the commencement of ground disturbance activities. Surveys shall include examination of trees, shrubs, and the gr ound within grassland for nesting birds, as several bird species known to the area are shrub or ground nesters.
If active nests are found, clearing and construction activities within 300 feet of the nest (500 feet for raptors or special -status species), or within a suitable distance as determined by the CDFW, shall be postponed or halted until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field w ith flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests will occur. The results of the survey, and any avoidance measures taken, shall be submitted to the City of Simi Valley Planning Division within 30 days of completion of the pre -construction surveys and/or construction monitoring to document compliance with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds
• 4.3-5. The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys no more than 30 days prior to construction activities on the Project Site within the proposed development areas and 500 feet beyond the grading limits for the presence of those special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur in on- site habitats that will be directly impacted by project activities. The qualified biologist shall possess a CDFW Scientific Collection Permit and obtain a CDFW Authorization prior to the implementation of pre -construction surveys. Surveys shall include an examination of all areas where ground disturbance may occur. For burrowing owl, the surveys shall consist of three site visits and shall be conducted in areas dominated by field crops, disturbed habitat, and grasslands. If a burrowing owl is located, occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through 998
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-34
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
non-invasive methods that either the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If a burrowing owl is detected but nesting is not occurring, construction work can proceed after any owls have been evacuated from the site using CDFW -approved burrow closure procedures and after alternative nest sites have been provided in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (10-17-95). Unless otherwise authorized by CDFW, a 500-foot buffer, within which no activity will be permissible, will be maintained between Project activities and nesting burrowing owls during the nesting season.
This protected area will remain in effect until August 31 or at CDFW’s discretion and based upon monitoring evidence, until the young owls are foraging independently.
Results of the surveys and relocation efforts shall be provided to CDFW in a mitigation status report.
If a coastal California gnatcatcher is observed, vegetation removal and clearing for the project shall occur between September 1 and February 15, outside the gnatcatcher breeding season. All clearing of vegetation shall take place in the presence of a biological monitor. Prior to and during the initial cleaning and grubbing of the coastal sage scrub, or other suitable gnatcatcher habitat, between February 15 an d August 31, the biological monitor shall locate any individual gnatcatchers on site and direct operators to begin in an area away from the birds. In addition, the biological monitor shall walk ahead of clearing and grubbing equipment to flush birds toward s areas of habitat that will be avoided. If nesting gnatcatchers are detected within 100 feet of proposed construction areas, gnatcatcher nest monitoring shall be initiated and use of heavy equipment within 100 feet of active nest shall be postponed until the nest(s) are determined to be inactive. If operation of grading equipment results in nest abandonment, the USFWS will be contacted immediately.
• 4.3-6. Silt fencing shall be properly installed (placed into a trench 6 inches deep and refilled and compacted) at the limits of grading to prevent animals from moving onto the site following the pre -construction surveys. During construction, the fence shall be monitored weekly by a qualified biologist and repairs shall be made immediately following weekly inspections. Silt fencing shall be removed immediately following ground disturbing activities (e.g., vegetation clearing and grading). • 4.3-7. Pets and other domestic animals shall be prohibited from the remaining open space areas and in any revegetation areas on the Project Site unless restrained by leash and accompanied at all times by the owner or responsible party. Fencing of sufficient height and design or landscaping acceptable to the City shall be constructed between the edge of development and the natural areas to prevent domestic animals from entering open space h abitat areas, including use of new technology such as electric fences. Human access into the open space areas shall only occur in designated areas such as trails or along the perimeter of the habitats. Prohibitions against human and domestic animal use in sensitive habitat areas shall be established by ordinance and/or CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall also state that tree houses shall not be constructed within native oak or riparian habitat trees, or any other trees known to be used by raptors for nesting. Interpretative signs shall be constructed and placed in appropriate areas, as determined by a qualified biologist, that explain the sensitivity 999
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-35
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
of natural habitats and the need to minimize impacts on these adjacent areas. The project applicant shall be responsible for installation of interpretive signs and fencing.
• 4.3-8. Landscape plans within common areas of the project shall be reviewed by a qualified botanist, who shall recommend appropriate provisions to prevent invasive plant species from colonizing remaining natural areas. These provisions may include the following: (a) review and screening of proposed plant palette and planting plans to identify and avoid the use of invasive species; (b) weed removal during the initial planting of landscaped areas; and (c) the monitoring for and removal of weeds and other invasive plant species as part of ongoing landscape maintenance activities. The frequency and method of monitoring for invasive species shall be determined by a qualified botanist. In addition, residents shall be encouraged to plant noninvasive plant species w ithin private yards. A list of plants to avoid shall be developed by a qualified botanist, to include at a minimum and distributed by the homeowners association or included in the CC&Rs.
• 4.3-9. All lighting along the perimeter of natural areas, particularly street lamps, shall be downcast luminaries and shall be shielded and oriented in a manner that will prevent spillage or glare into the remaining natural and open space areas. All security lighting within common areas will be controlled by motion detectors. Acceptable lighting parameters will be included in the Specific Plan Design Guidelines and will allow such features of uplighting of trees in areas not along the perimeter of the natural areas.
• 4.3-10. A City-approved biologist shall be retained by the applicant as a construction monitor to ensure that incidental construction impacts on remaining biological resources are avoided or minimized. Responsibilities of the construction monitor shall include the following:
o Attend all pre -grading meetings to ensure that the timing and location of construction activities do not conflict with mitigation requirements. o Provide environmental training to educate all on -site personnel regarding all environmental permit condition with the contractor and other construction personnel describing the importance of restricting work to within the project boundaries and outside of the preserved areas. The monitor should also discuss staging/storage areas for construction equipment and materials. The biological monitor shall investigate all on -site storage areas to minimize impacts to biological resources.
o Mark/flag the construction area in the field with the contractor in accordance with the final approved grading plan. Any construction activity areas immediately adjacent to special -status plant populations or other special - status resources may be flagged o r temporarily fenced by the monitor, at his/her discretion.
o Periodically visit the site during construction to coordinate and monitor compliance with the above provisions.
1000
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-36
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
• 4.3-11. The construction contractor shall install temporary erosion control measures, if necessary, to reduce impacts to and protect on site drainages from excess sedimentation, siltation, and erosion. These measure shall consist of minimization of existing vegetation removal; the use of temporary soil covers, such as hydroseeding, mulch/binder and erosion control blankets to protect exposed soil from wind and rain; and/or the installation of silt fencing, berms, and dikes to protect storm drain inlets and drainages.
• 4.3-12. Vehicles carrying supplies, such as concrete, should not be allowed to empty, clean out, or otherwise place materials into natural areas, or that may drain into natural areas on or immediately adjacent to the site.
• 4.3-13. Any equipment or vehicles driven and/or operated within or adjacent to drainages shall be checked and maintained daily, to prevent leaks of materials that if introduced to water could be deleterious to aquatic life. No equipment maintenance shall be conducted within the drainage channels or within 50 feet of channels. • 4.3-14. Construction personnel shall be prohibited from entry into areas outside the designated construction area, except for necessary construction related activities, such as surveying. All such construction activities in or adjacent to remaining open space areas shall be coordinated with the biologist.
• 4.3-15. Standard dust control measures of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District shall be implemented to reduce impacts on nearby plants and wildlife. This includes a variety of options to reduce dust including replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible, watering active sites regularly, and suspending all excavating and grading operations during periods of high winds. • 4.3-16. Upon completion of construction, the contractor shall be held responsible to restore any haul roads, access roads, or staging areas that are outside of approved grading limits. This restoration shall be done in consultation with the project biologist.
• 4.3-17. Mitigation for Southern Willow Scrub and Southern Riparian Scrub shall be provided in accordance with USACE and CDFW CDFG permit requirements and in conjunction with the City of Simi Valley and the Ventura County Watershed Protection District, since these plant communities are located along streambed channels regulated by these agencies. Mitigation shall consist of creation, restoration, enhancement, invasive species removal, in lieu fee payment or off -site property purchase, which are further described under the subsection below and mitigation measure 4.3-19.
• 4.3-18. The applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits from the regulatory agencies prior to the commencement of any project -related grading activities within jurisdictional drainages including wetland and non -wetland waters of the U.S. and within streambed a s regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Game. All subsequent activities shall follow the standards and special conditions set forth in the permits. In accordance with the agencies permits and agreements, the following minimum mitigation efforts shall be implemented to offset impacts to jurisdictional waters.
1001
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-37
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
• 4.3-19. Mitigation for impacts to USACE, CDFW CDFG, and RWQCB jurisdictional areas and to sensitive Southern Willow Scrub and Southern Riparian Scrub non - jurisdictional areas would be by any of the following singly or in combination:
o Creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of sufficient acreage to mitigate for impacts to Corps jurisdictional waters and CDFW CDFG jurisdiction consisting of freshwater marsh (wetlands) southern willow woodland, southern willow scrub, southern riparian scrub, native grassland, and/or coast live oak woodland habitat on site; or
o Removal of non-native plant species such as giant cane (Arundo donax), castor bean (Ricinus communis), and salt cedar ( Tamarix ramosissima) within Tapo Canyon Creek, Gillibrand Canyon Creek (Tapo Canyon Tributary E) and Dry Canyon Creek on and/or off site to restore riparian function and value to portions of each drainage or elsewhere in the Arroyo Simi watershed; or o Purchase of an offsite parcel (or parcels of land within the Tapo Canyon Creek Watershed supporting sufficient USACE jurisdiction and CDFW CDFG jurisdiction and placing a conservation easement over the parcel (or parcels); and
o For temporary impacts, restore sufficient acreage of USACE jurisdictional waters and CDFW CDFG jurisdiction resulting from temporary impacts to compensate for the impacts.
• 4.3-20 For any impacts or restoration/mitigation on site the activities shall by supervised by a qualified biologist approved by the Director of Environmental Services for the City of Simi Valley.
• 4.3-21. All impacted on-site stream channels and ponded areas shall be revegetated with native riparian vegetation, as approved by CDFW CDFG and the Director of Environmental Services, in accordance with the provisions agreed upon by the proponent, CDFW CDFG and the City.
• 4.3-22. Mitigation requirements shall be commenced prior or concurrent with the impacts, unless not feasible, and as agreed to by the agencies and the City. • 4.3-23. Native planting shall occur along the banks of both sides of the channel within the existing project boundaries.
• 4.3-24. Monitoring shall be completed by a qualified biologist quarterly for a period of three years and annually for an additional two years. • 4.3-25. Success criteria shall include creating wetland/riparian habitat equal to or greater in area and biological value than the jurisdictional resources impacted. • 4.3-26. The loss of the tributary non -wetland waters of the U.S. and streambeds and the loss of associated riparian habitat shall be offset by the restoration of such habitat along the unlined portions of the major drainages. Plant species native to the area shall be used and restored areas will occur such that riparian functions and values will be enhanced.
1002
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-38
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
• 4.3-27. The primary goal of channel maintenance is to provide adequate stormwater runoff and bank protection. Such activities must be of a design and frequency that is acceptable and approved by the USACE, CDFW CDFG, RWQCB, and VCWPD. • 4.3-28 The project applicant shall design wildlife overcrossings, undercrossings, and surface crossings to meet minimum standards for cross -section, length, location, fencing and vegetative plantings as shown in the habitat linkage studies prepared by Envicom Corporation. The applicant shall submit a Wildlife Corridor Exhibit for Corridors B, C, E, and F incorporating designs within the grading plan, in compliance with the mitigation measures within the studies to the City for review and approval of the Dir ector of Environmental Services and the Director of Public Works. The applicant shall comply with the formulas and design parameters of the Envicom Reports and Undercrossing Structures of the study entitled A Consideration of Wildlife Movement in the Santa Susana Mountains. Designs in compliance with the described mitigation measures shall be submitted with the submission of the project improvement plans, grading plans, and permits for the project, and approved prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project.
• 4.3-29. The applicant shall prepare and submit a Wildlife Habitat Management Plan for review and approval by the Director of Environmental Services prior to the issuance of a Zone Clearance for the project, including therein provisions for biological monitoring t o evaluate corridor functioning and appropriate funding to ensure the sustainability of the corridors, pursuant to the recommendations of pages 54 and 55 of the Envicom Wildlife Study. The Wildlife Habitat Management Plan may incorporate contemporary methodologies and practices that foster wildlife corridor objectives in maintaining open space connectivity.
• 4.3-30 Simi Valley Development Code Section 9 -38.010(d)070(D) requires replacement of all mature trees, especially oak trees of the genus Quercus and species agrifolia, berberidifolia, and lobata; but also including historic trees and other protected mature trees, removed or otherwise impacted as a result of a development project. The value of the replacement trees shall be equal to the appraised value of the trees removed.
• 4.3-31. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain the services of a Certified Arborist, Horticulturalist, or Landscape Architect, who is approved by the Director of Environmental Services. The registered professional Arborist, Horticulturalist, or Landscape Architect shall be experienced in the removal and transplant of mature oak and walnut trees in order to prepare specific details regarding methodologies for excavation, planting, boxing, and/or specific relocation sites of mature trees.
• 4.3-32. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the registered professional Arborist, Horticulturalist, or Landscape Architect shall submit to the City, for approval by the Director of Environmental Services, a Mature Tree Protection, Relocation and Replacement Plan. Specific details regarding minimizing encroachments, tree protection, deadwood removal and pruning, watering and fertilization, diseases and pest, grading within driplines, and considerations regarding care of remaining mature trees shall be provided in the Mature Tree Protection, Relocation and 1003
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-39
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
Replacement Plan. The following mitigation and monitoring measures shall be implemented in addition to and as part of the requirements set forth in the Simi Valley Development Code, and in the Mature Tree Protection, Relocation, and Replacement Plan.
• 4.3-33 Specific monitoring requirements and success criteria shall be developed by the Certified Arborist, Horticulturalist, or Landscape Architect, approved by the Director of Environmental Services, and included in the Mature Tree Protection, Relocation, and Replacement Plan. At a minimum, monitoring criteria shall require 80 percent survival of both saved and transplanted mature trees and 100 percent survival of supplemental plantings, at the conclusion of the monitoring period.
Contingency actions shall include supplemental plantings until 100 percent survival is achieved.
• 4.3-34. The Certified Arborist, Horticulturalist or Landscape Architect shall determine watering and fertilization requirements. All container planted trees shall receive individual irrigation heads to initiate growth of container stock. Irrigation of a design ac ceptable by the registered professional Arborist, Horticulturalist or Landscape Architect, as approved by the City Landscape Architect, shall be established and maintained for a minimum of three years after supplemental planting is completed, or unt il such a time that the Certified Arborist, Horticulturalist or Landscape Architect has determined that it is no longer necessary for the survival of the tree. The Mature Tree Protection, Relocation, and Replacement Plan will further detail watering and fertilization requirements.
• 4.3-35. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, the applicant shall obtain a Tree Removal Permit as required by Simi Valley Development Code Section 9-38.060.
• 4.3-36 All preserved mature trees within the proposed grading limits shall be temporarily fenced with chain -link fencing located 5 feet outside of their driplines prior to commencement of grading activities. No equipment storage, debris drop, parking, etc. , shall occur within the fenced area of the preserved oak trees during construction. Fencing shall remain during all phases of construction and shall not be moved or removed without knowledge of the Certified Arborist, Horticulturalist, or Landscape Architect and approved by the Director of Environmental Services. • 4.3-37. Any brush clearance within 5 feet of the dripline of an oak tree shall be completed by handwork only. If this is not feasible, a Certified Arborist, Horticulturalist, or Landscape Architect shall be consulted and shall monitor the brush clearance, as well as any other activity that would occur under within 5 feet of the dripline of the tree.
• 4.3-38. All dead wood removal and/or pruning shall be accomplished by a qualified arborist and only after approval by the City’s Landscape Architect. Pruning wounds shall not be sealed unless required by the City’s Landscape Architect. Climbing “gaffs” shall not be used by any tree climber (except to reach an injured climber or when removing a tree).
1004
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-40
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
• 4.3-39 The Certified Arborist, Horticulturalist, or Landscape Architect shall directly supervise the boxing, transport and replanting of removed healthy trees. Healthy mature trees that require removal due to project development shall be side-boxed no less than 90 days prior to relocation to the selected on -site location, and bottom - boxed no less than 1 week prior to relocation. After boxing has been completed, the boxed trees shall be transported and planted elsewhere on the Project Site , at a location where the on-site soils demonstrate the capacity to support the growth and maintenance of oak trees. Some of the trees to be removed will be transplanted in association with landscape design plans for the development area as approved by the City for this proj ect. The majority of oak and other trees removed shall be transplanted on site, outside the development boundaries, in association with the Mature Tree Protection, Relocation, and Replacement Plan. Should it become evident that any removed mature trees can not feasibly be relocated on the Project Site , a relocation site(s) shall be sought off site, subject to the approval of the Director of Environmental Services.
• 4.3-40 The applicant shall replace healthy mature trees, which cannot be boxed and transplanted, by the planting of not less than 48 -inch box (container) sized trees, which have an aggregate value that is equal to the appraised value of the trees being replaced. The trees shall be grown from local seed stock. Smaller sized container saplings shall be planted in steeper areas that may preclude establishment of larger trees. Additional container stock saplings (15 -gallon) shall be planted in the oak woodland mitigation area to mitigate for grading encroachments within the driplines of preserved oak trees. The rate at which these saplings will be transplanted shall be determined by the Certified Arborist, Horticulturalist, or Landscape Architect, with approval by the Director of Environmental Services, in compliance with the Simi Valley Development Code. Specific tree planting locations will be mapped and included in the Mature Tree Protection, Removal, and Replacement Plan. • 4.3- 41. Prior to the grading of the Project Site, the vigor of the preserved -in place trees shall be assessed by the Certified Arborist, Horticulturalist, or Landscape Architect. Any trees in a weakened condition shall be treated as deemed necessary by the arborist, to invigorate them. Following that, during all phases of construction, the health of the trees shall be monitored on a monthly basis for disease signs and symptoms. These problems, should they arise, shall be remedied as recommended by the registered professional Arborist, Horticulturalist or Landscape Architect, and approved by the City’s Landscape Architect.
• 4.3-42. In order to mitigate the impacts to approximately 3 acres of coast live oak woodland on the Project Site , the applicant shall artificially regenerate an oak woodland outside the development boundaries (including fuel management zones) of the Project Site. Specific steps discussing planting, transplanting, monitoring, and success criteria will be developed by the Certified Arborist, Horticulturalist or Landscape Architect and a qualified biologist and approved by the Director of Environmental Service s, prior to approval of a grading permit for the project. The applicant shall replace the 3 acres of impacted coast live oak woodland by establishing a replacement coast live oak woodland totaling not less than 3 acres. The replacement woodland shall be es tablished by the planting of not less than 36 -inch- 1005
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-41
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
box (container) sized trees at a ratio of not less than 10 trees per acre. The trees shall be grown from a local coast live oak seed stock. Smaller sized container saplings shall be planted in steeper areas that may preclude establishment of larger trees.
Additional container stock saplings (15-gallon) shall be planted in the oak woodland mitigation area to mitigate for grading encroachments within the dripline of a preserved oak tree. The rate at which these saplings will be transplanted shall be determined by the Certified Arborist, Horticulturalist, or Landscape Architect, with approval by the Director of Environmental Services, in compliance with the Simi Valley Development Code. Specific tree planting locations will be mapped and included in the Mature Tree Protection, Removal, and Replacement Plan. • 4.3-43. Specific monitoring requirements and success criteria shall be developed by the qualified arborist, approved by the Department of Environmental Services, and included in the Oak Woodland Regeneration Plan. However, at a minimum, criteria shall require 80 percent survival of both saved and transplanted mature trees and 100 percent survival of supplemental plantings, at the conclusion of a three -year monitoring period. Contingency actions shall include supplemental plantings until 80 percent survival of both saved and transplanted mature trees and 100 percent survival of supplemental plantings is achieved. Monitoring efforts will include evaluation of health and survival of both planted and transplanted trees. At a minimum, monitoring efforts will be conducted quarterly for the first three years. • 4.3-44. Subject to the approval by the Director Environmental Services, additional oak tree plantings/transplants may occur in areas of disturbed coastal live oak woodland, consistent with existing plant community associations.
• 4.3-45. Specific details regarding methodologies for excavation, planting, boxing, and/or specific relocation sites of mature trees shall be included in the Mature Tree Protection, Removal and Replacement Plan, prior to grading activities, based on feasibility and procedures set forth by the registered professional Arborist, Horticulturalist or Landscape Architect.
• 4.3-46. Non-native shrubs and trees shall be removed from the revegetation areas and remaining coast live oak habitat on site.
• 4.3-47. Transplanted and container stock trees shall be planted on center at staggered distances in order to avoid extensive areas of closed canopy and to maintain areas of natural open savannah similar to existing conditions. Specific details of planting locations shall be outlined in the Oak Woodland Regeneration Plan and the Mature Tree Protection, Removal and Replacement Plan. Where it is recommended by the registered professional Arborist, Horticulturalist, or Landscape Architect, and approved by the C ity’s Landscape Architect, that irrigation will be required, said irrigation shall be designed specifically for oak tree needs. Understory revegetation shall only be incorporated where it does not interfere with oak tree establishment and irrigation.
1006
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-42
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
3.3.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fis h and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fis h and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Proposed Project would result in fewer overall impacts to vegetation communities. The 2011 EIR disclosed that the Approved Project would result in direct impacts to a total of 790.72 acres of land. The Proposed Project would impact a total of 305.22 acres of land, which is a reduction in impacts of 485.50 acres (Chambers Group, 2024a) . By substantially reducing the acreage of impacts, the Proposed Project would also reduce impacts related to special status species. Additional information is provided below related to specific species with potential to occur in the Project Site and nearby vicinity.
1007
Environmental Checklist
LOST CANYONS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 3-43
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE EIR
Special Status Plants
Protocol-level focused plant surveys were conducted in 2018, 2020, 2022, 2023, and 2024 within the Project Site. Of the 18 special status plant species that were identified with a potential for occurrence within the Project Site, as identified in the Approved Project’s Native Plant Protection Plan (NPMP, GLA 2015), only Catalina mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinae) and slender mariposa lily ( Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis ) were recorded within the impact footprint of the Proposed Project. Impacts to these species will be mitigated through protection within the conserved lands of the Project Site in accordance with the terms of the Native Plant Protection Plan. Three additional California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 4 special status species, Hubby’s phacelia (Phacelia hubbyi), San Diego viguiera ( Bahiopsis laciniata), and Plummer’s mariposa lily ( Calochortus plummerae ), were discovered during various surveying efforts from 2018 through 2023. As proposed, the Propose d Project would not result in impacts to area s containing Hubby’s phacelia and San Diego viguiera. However, Plummer’s mariposa lily was observed in 2024 within the impact footprint for the Proposed Project, which is a CRPR 4 species for which special protection is not afforded pursuant to CEQA. The other 14 species identified in the Native Plant Protection Plan were not observed during the surveys. These species are therefore presumed absent from the impact footprint for the Proposed Project. As such, the Proposed Project would result in no new or increased impacts related to special status plants . As required by the 2011 EIR, the Proposed Project would be required to implement the NPMP, which identifies methods for preserving special- status plant species at a 1:1 ratio within suitable habitats that would be preserved on the Project Site, or options for propagating those species that would be impacted within suitable habitats located within the proposed open space areas, but outside of fuel management zones, within the Project Site.
Special Status Animals
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Although no coastal California gnatcatchers were observed during focused surveys conducted for the 2011 EIR, the 2011 EIR concluded that there was potential for this species to occur and applicable mitigation measures were included to avoid and offset impa cts to gnatcatchers.
After certification of the 2011 EIR, in 2013, 2014, and 2016, coastal California gnatcatchers were observed during focused surveys within the southern portion of the Project Site in areas that are proposed to be conserved by the Proposed Project (Chambers Group, 2024a).
None of the coastal California gnatcatcher territories or observations in 2013, 2014, and 2016 overlapped with areas of the Project Site that would be impacted by the Proposed Project (Chambers Group, 2024a).
In 2017, the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion for the Approved Project evaluated in the 2011 EIR, which included take coverage for the coastal California gnatcatcher. The 2017 Biological Opinion assumed impacts to 302.93 acres of suitable habitat and impacts to a total of up to 43 individual coastal California gnatcatchers consisting of five family groups, five pairs, and eight individuals, that would be impacted by the Approved Project (Chambers Group, 2024a).
1008