Thousand Oaks City Council
May 21, 2024

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 47 104 108 83 129 79 70 565 78 97 579 29 Future Volume (vph) 47 104 108 83 129 79 70 565 78 97 579 29 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.943 0.982 0.993
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 1770 3337 0 3433 4994 0 3433 3514 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.684 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1583 1274 3337 0 3433 4994 0 3433 3514 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 117 86 26 6
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 183 522 376 623
Travel Time (s) 4.2 11.9 8.5 14.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 51 113 117 90 140 86 76 614 85 105 629 32 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 51 113 117 90 226 0 76 699 0 105 661 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 24 24
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 13.0 46.0 46.0 33.0 33.0 16.0 56.0 18.0 58.0 Total Split (%) 10.8% 38.3% 38.3% 27.5% 27.5% 13.3% 46.7% 15.0% 48.3% Maximum Green (s) 9.0 42.0 42.0 29.0 29.0 12.0 52.0 14.0 54.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0000 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 9.0 42.0 42.0 29.0 29.0 12.0 52.0 14.0 54.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.35 0.35 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.43 0.12 0.45 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.17 0.19 0.29 0.26 0.22 0.32 0.26 0.42
Control Delay 54.2 27.9 5.5 40.3 23.3 67.7 12.0 50.2 23.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 54.2 27.9 5.5 40.3 23.3 67.7 12.0 50.2 23.1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings
21: Moorpark Road & Hillcrest 01/10/2024
Future - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

LOS D C A D C E B D C
Approach Delay 23.4 28.2 17.5 26.9
Approach LOS C C B C
Stops (vph) 42 71 13 66 102 69 148 87 395
Fuel Used(gal) 11035 26 28
CO Emissions (g/hr) 57 79 24 177 368 124 445 136 559
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 11 15 5 34 72 24 87 26 109
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 13 18 6 41 85 29 103 31 130
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 00000 00 00
Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 60 0 57 45 31 46 38 176
Queue Length 95th (ft) 40 105 40 107 80 59 64 67 226
Internal Link Dist (ft) 103 442 296 543
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 257 652 630 307 871 343 2178 400 1584 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Storage Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.17 0.19 0.29 0.26 0.22 0.32 0.26 0.42 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.42
Intersection Signal Delay: 23.2 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 21: Moorpark Road & Hillcrest

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
23: Frontage Road/Highway 23 Off-Ramp & Hillcrest 01/10/2024 Future - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 386 15 7 177 0000 2 8 0 3 7 8 2 8 2 Future Volume (vph) 0 386 15 7 177 0000 2 8 0 3 7 8 2 8 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.994 0.955
Flt Protected 0.950 0.985
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3518 0 1770 1863 00000 3329 0
Flt Permitted 0.499 0.985
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3518 0 930 1863 00000 3329 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 11 199
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 112 455 823 414
Travel Time (s) 2.5 10.3 18.7 9.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 420 16 8 192 0000 3 0 4 4 1 1 3 0 7
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 436 0 8 192 00000 1022 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 6
Permitted Phases 8 6
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.02 0.26 0.70
Control Delay 8.8 7.6 9.2 11.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.8 7.6 9.2 11.2
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
23: Frontage Road/Highway 23 Off-Ramp & Hillcrest 01/10/2024 Future - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

LOS A A A B
Approach Delay 8.8 9.2 11.2
Approach LOS A A B
Stops (vph) 241 7 109 590
Fuel Used(gal) 9 0 3 8
CO Emissions (g/hr) 634 10 238 589
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 123 2 46 115
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 147 2 55 137
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 0 0 0 0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 32 1 27 72
Queue Length 95th (ft) 55 6 57 123
Internal Link Dist (ft) 32 375 743 334
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1413 372 745 1451
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.02 0.26 0.70
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 40
Actuated Cycle Length: 40
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2: and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 40
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.70
Intersection Signal Delay: 10.3 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 23: Frontage Road/Highway 23 Off-Ramp & Hillcrest

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
24: Thousand Oaks & Frontage Road 01/10/2024
Future - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 554 452 0 209 188
Future Volume (vph) 0 554 452 0 209 188
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3539 3539 0 1770 2787
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3539 3539 0 1770 2787
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 204
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 251 831 823
Travel Time (s) 5.7 18.9 18.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 602 491 0 227 204
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 602 491 0 227 204
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Left Right
Median Width(ft) 0 0 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 4 8 6
Permitted Phases 6
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
v/c Ratio 0.43 0.35 0.32 0.16
Control Delay 9.8 9.2 16.5 8.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 9.8 9.2 16.5 8.3
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
24: Thousand Oaks & Frontage Road 01/10/2024
Future - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR

L O S AA BA
Approach Delay 9.8 9.2 12.6
Approach LOS A A B
Stops (vph) 363 284 192 115
Fuel Used(gal) 13 6 3 2
CO Emissions (g/hr) 878 447 217 151
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 171 87 42 29
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 203 104 50 35
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 0 0 0 0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 37 54 5
Queue Length 95th (ft) 77 63 m83 m21
Internal Link Dist (ft) 171 751 743
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1415 1415 708 1237
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.35 0.32 0.16
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 40
Actuated Cycle Length: 40
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2: and 6:SBL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 40
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.43
Intersection Signal Delay: 10.4 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Splits and Phases: 24: Thousand Oaks & Frontage Road

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
33: Rancho & Thousand Oaks 01/10/2024
Future - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 41 375 257 303 366 76 198 276 314 101 282 32 Future Volume (vph) 41 375 257 303 366 76 198 276 314 101 282 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.974 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3447 0 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.416 0.569
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3447 0 775 3539 1583 1060 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 279 28 341 195
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 296 389 511 569
Travel Time (s) 6.7 8.8 11.6 12.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 45 408 279 329 398 83 215 300 341 110 307 35 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 45 408 279 329 481 0 215 300 341 110 307 35 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+pt NA Prot pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 52216
Permitted Phases 4 2 6 6
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 12.0 26.0 26.0 23.0 37.0 19.0 34.0 34.0 12.0 27.0 27.0 Total Split (%) 12.6% 27.4% 27.4% 24.2% 38.9% 20.0% 35.8% 35.8% 12.6% 28.4% 28.4% Maximum Green (s) 8.0 22.0 22.0 19.0 33.0 15.0 30.0 30.0 8.0 23.0 23.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 8.0 22.0 22.0 19.0 33.0 42.0 30.0 30.0 31.0 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.20 0.35 0.44 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.24 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.40 0.43 0.27 0.47 0.27 0.36 0.07 Control Delay 46.6 34.2 6.9 36.3 23.2 19.9 25.1 5.1 18.4 31.3 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.6 34.2 6.9 36.3 23.2 19.9 25.1 5.1 18.4 31.3 0.2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings
33: Rancho & Thousand Oaks 01/10/2024
Future - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

L O S DCADC BCABCA
Approach Delay 24.6 28.5 15.8 25.8
Approach LOS C C B C
Stops (vph) 38 317 30 260 304 122 199 31 67 227 0
Fuel Used(gal) 18355 242270
CO Emissions (g/hr) 67 535 195 321 357 158 252 122 151 488 31 NOx Emissions (g/hr) 13 104 38 63 70 31 49 24 29 95 6
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 16 124 45 74 83 37 58 28 35 113 7
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 00000 000000
Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 113 0 91 106 80 71 0 38 81 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 61 160 63 134 151 131 105 60 71 120 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 216 309 431 489
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 149 819 580 686 1215 499 1117 733 405 856 531 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.40 0.43 0.27 0.47 0.27 0.36 0.07 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 95
Actuated Cycle Length: 95
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.50
Intersection Signal Delay: 23.3 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 33: Rancho & Thousand Oaks

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: Moorpark Road & Thousand Oaks Blvd 01/10/2024
Future - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 33 71 226 385 129 290 288 885 319 187 875 20 Future Volume (vph) 33 71 226 385 129 290 288 885 319 187 875 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 0.908 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.997
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3078 1441 3433 1863 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5070 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3078 1441 3433 1863 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5070 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 123 155 315 347 3
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 192 672 498 415
Travel Time (s) 4.4 15.3 11.3 9.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 36 77 246 418 140 315 313 962 347 203 951 22 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 50%
Lane Group Flow (vph) 36 200 123 418 140 315 313 962 347 203 973 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 24 24
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Prot Prot NA Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 74438852216
Permitted Phases
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 12.0 22.0 22.0 29.0 39.0 39.0 25.0 51.0 51.0 18.0 44.0 Total Split (%) 10.0% 18.3% 18.3% 24.2% 32.5% 32.5% 20.8% 42.5% 42.5% 15.0% 36.7% Maximum Green (s) 8.0 18.0 18.0 25.0 35.0 35.0 21.0 47.0 47.0 14.0 40.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 8.0 18.0 18.0 25.0 35.0 35.0 21.0 47.0 47.0 14.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.29 0.29 0.18 0.39 0.39 0.12 0.33 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.35 0.35 0.58 0.26 0.46 0.52 0.48 0.42 0.51 0.58 Control Delay 60.5 20.2 6.2 46.6 34.2 5.9 48.5 28.4 4.1 57.4 24.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.5 20.2 6.2 46.6 34.2 5.9 48.5 28.4 4.1 57.4 24.9 Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: Moorpark Road & Thousand Oaks Blvd 01/10/2024
Future - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

L O S ECADCADCAEC
Approach Delay 19.4 29.9 27.1 30.5
Approach LOS B C C C
Stops (vph) 32 66 7 340 97 28 255 642 25 180 432
Fuel Used(gal) 1 1 0 12 4 5 5 12 2 4 12
CO Emissions (g/hr) 44 98 24 836 250 373 375 846 115 303 870 NOx Emissions (g/hr) 9 19 5 163 49 73 73 165 22 59 169
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 10 23 6 194 58 86 87 196 27 70 202 Dilemma Vehicles (#) 00000000000
Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 29 0 151 83 0 114 202 0 82 130 Queue Length 95th (ft) 63 66 35 205 138 67 161 243 59 119 190 Internal Link Dist (ft) 112 592 418 335
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 118 566 347 715 543 684 600 1991 831 400 1692 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.35 0.35 0.58 0.26 0.46 0.52 0.48 0.42 0.51 0.58 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.58
Intersection Signal Delay: 28.0 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: Moorpark Road & Thousand Oaks Blvd

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
10: Lombard Street/Office Dwy & Thousand Oaks Boulevard 01/10/2024 Future - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 6 500 11 41 565 5 19 1 71 12 0 25
Future Volume (vph) 6 500 11 41 565 5 19 1 71 12 0 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.997 0.999 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.999 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3525 0 1770 3536 0 1770 0 1583 1770 0 1583 Flt Permitted 0.999 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3525 0 1770 3536 0 1770 0 1583 1770 0 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 1027 262 327 171
Travel Time (s) 23.3 6.0 7.4 3.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 7 543 12 45 614 5 21 1 77 13 0 27
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 562 0 45 619 0 21 1 77 13 0 27
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane Yes
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop Yield
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
12: Thousand Oaks Boulevard/Thousand Oaks & Hodencamp 01/10/2024 Future - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 90 474 538 220 201 75
Future Volume (vph) 90 474 538 220 201 75
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 239 82
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 262 1493 609
Travel Time (s) 6.0 33.9 13.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 98 515 585 239 218 82
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 515 585 239 218 82
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 24
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane Yes
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 8 6
Permitted Phases 8 6
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 10.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (%) 20.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0%
Maximum Green (s) 6.0 26.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 00000
Act Effct Green (s) 6.0 26.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.52 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.28 0.52 0.36 0.20 0.15
Control Delay 28.2 7.2 15.8 4.0 18.6 10.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 28.2 7.2 15.8 4.0 18.6 10.8
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
12: Thousand Oaks Boulevard/Thousand Oaks & Hodencamp 01/10/2024 Future - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR

L O S CABABB
Approach Delay 10.6 12.4 16.4
Approach LOS B B B
Stops (vph) 83 238 410 31 174 44
Fuel Used(gal) 1 3 13 4 3 1
CO Emissions (g/hr) 81 209 920 287 226 68
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 16 41 179 56 44 13
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 19 48 213 66 52 16
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 000000
Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 39 71 0 32 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 64 62 111 37 56 28
Internal Link Dist (ft) 182 1413 529
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 212 1840 1132 669 1098 562
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.28 0.52 0.36 0.20 0.15
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 50
Actuated Cycle Length: 50
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2: and 6:SBL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.52
Intersection Signal Delay: 12.5 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 12: Thousand Oaks Boulevard/Thousand Oaks & Hodencamp

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
17: Hodencamp Road & Hillcrest 01/10/2024
Future - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 42 389 68 36 373 168 49 198 31 156 156 39 Future Volume (vph) 42 389 68 36 373 168 49 198 31 156 156 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.953 0.980 0.970
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 3373 0 1770 3468 0 1770 3433 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.619 0.597
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 3373 0 1153 3468 0 1112 3433 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 109 158 34 42
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 1053 560 357 554
Travel Time (s) 23.9 12.7 8.1 12.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 46 423 74 39 405 183 53 215 34 170 170 42 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 423 74 39 588 0 53 249 0 170 212 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 9.0 22.0 22.0 8.0 21.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (%) 18.0% 44.0% 44.0% 16.0% 42.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 18.0 18.0 4.0 17.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 5.0 18.0 18.0 4.0 17.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.63 0.12 0.28 0.47 0.14 0.22 0.48 0.19
Control Delay 24.8 18.4 2.1 26.9 10.7 9.8 8.3 19.2 10.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.8 18.4 2.1 26.9 10.7 9.8 8.3 19.2 10.3
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
17: Hodencamp Road & Hillcrest 01/10/2024
Future - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

L O S C B A C BA AB B
Approach Delay 16.7 11.7 8.6 14.3
Approach LOS BBAB
Stops (vph) 42 310 6 38 290 34 132 124 104
Fuel Used(gal) 1 10 1 1 12 1 3 2 2
CO Emissions (g/hr) 83 706 89 73 857 46 199 138 128
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 16 137 17 14 167 9 39 27 25
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 19 164 21 17 199 11 46 32 30
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 00000 00 00
Queue Length 50th (ft) 13 99 0 11 48 13 28 39 18
Queue Length 95th (ft) 37 176 12 34 84 m24 36 86 37
Internal Link Dist (ft) 973 480 277 474
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 177 670 639 141 1251 368 1132 355 1127 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Storage Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.63 0.12 0.28 0.47 0.14 0.22 0.48 0.19 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 50
Actuated Cycle Length: 50
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.63
Intersection Signal Delay: 13.2 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Splits and Phases: 17: Hodencamp Road & Hillcrest

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
21: Moorpark Road & Hillcrest 01/10/2024
Future - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 174 248 274 150 263 178 188 905 92 126 629 69 Future Volume (vph) 174 248 274 150 263 178 188 905 92 126 629 69 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.940 0.986 0.985
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 1770 3327 0 3433 5014 0 3433 3486 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.593 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1583 1105 3327 0 3433 5014 0 3433 3486 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 291 137 16 11
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 183 522 376 623
Travel Time (s) 4.2 11.9 8.5 14.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 189 270 298 163 286 193 204 984 100 137 684 75 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 270 298 163 479 0 204 1084 0 137 759 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 24 24
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 17.0 55.0 55.0 38.0 38.0 18.0 50.0 15.0 47.0 Total Split (%) 14.2% 45.8% 45.8% 31.7% 31.7% 15.0% 41.7% 12.5% 39.2% Maximum Green (s) 13.0 51.0 51.0 34.0 34.0 14.0 46.0 11.0 43.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0000 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 13.0 51.0 51.0 34.0 34.0 14.0 46.0 11.0 43.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.42 0.42 0.28 0.28 0.12 0.38 0.09 0.36 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.34 0.35 0.52 0.46 0.51 0.56 0.44 0.60
Control Delay 55.8 24.7 3.9 43.3 26.4 75.6 14.9 56.3 33.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.8 24.7 3.9 43.3 26.4 75.6 14.9 56.3 33.5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings
21: Moorpark Road & Hillcrest 01/10/2024
Future - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

L O S ECADC EB EC
Approach Delay 24.3 30.7 24.5 37.0
Approach LOS CCCD
Stops (vph) 161 163 23 125 254 184 272 117 550
Fuel Used(gal) 3315 1 2 5 1 1 3 1 1
CO Emissions (g/hr) 218 175 52 328 813 354 746 189 782
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 42 34 10 64 158 69 145 37 152
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 50 41 12 76 189 82 173 44 181
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 00000 00 00
Queue Length 50th (ft) 72 138 3 106 113 85 85 52 247
Queue Length 95th (ft) 111 206 56 180 164 126 109 85 313 Internal Link Dist (ft) 103 442 296 543
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 371 791 840 313 1040 400 1931 314 1256 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Storage Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.51 0.34 0.35 0.52 0.46 0.51 0.56 0.44 0.60 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.60
Intersection Signal Delay: 28.7 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 21: Moorpark Road & Hillcrest

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
23: Frontage Road/Highway 23 Off-Ramp & Hillcest/Hillcrest 01/10/2024 Future - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 590 12 9 374 0000 1 8 8 2 3 6 2 8 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 590 12 9 374 0000 1 8 8 2 3 6 2 8 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.997 0.940
Flt Protected 0.950 0.987
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3529 0 1770 1863 00000 3284 0
Flt Permitted 0.361 0.987
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3529 0 672 1863 00000 3284 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 6 291
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 112 455 823 414
Travel Time (s) 2.5 10.3 18.7 9.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 641 13 10 407 0000 2 0 4 2 5 7 3 0 4
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 654 0 10 407 00000 7 6 50
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 6
Permitted Phases 8 6
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.04 0.55 0.51
Control Delay 10.1 7.9 12.6 6.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 10.1 7.9 12.6 6.9
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
23: Frontage Road/Highway 23 Off-Ramp & Hillcest/Hillcrest 01/10/2024 Future - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

LOS B A B A
Approach Delay 10.1 12.5 6.9
Approach LOS B B A
Stops (vph) 398 8 269 299
Fuel Used(gal) 14 0 8 5
CO Emissions (g/hr) 977 13 535 343
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 190 3 104 67
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 226 3 124 79
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 0 0 0 0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 52 1 65 36
Queue Length 95th (ft) 84 7 125 67
Internal Link Dist (ft) 32 375 743 334
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1415 268 745 1488
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.04 0.55 0.51
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 40
Actuated Cycle Length: 40
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2: and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 40
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.55
Intersection Signal Delay: 9.3 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 23: Frontage Road/Highway 23 Off-Ramp & Hillcest/Hillcrest

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
24: Thousand Oaks & Frontage Road 01/10/2024
Future - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 871 689 0 147 118
Future Volume (vph) 0 871 689 0 147 118
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3539 3539 0 1770 2787
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3539 3539 0 1770 2787
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 128
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 251 831 823
Travel Time (s) 5.7 18.9 18.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 947 749 0 160 128
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 947 749 0 160 128
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Left Right
Median Width(ft) 0 0 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 4 8 6
Permitted Phases 6
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.53 0.23 0.11
Control Delay 12.7 10.8 14.6 7.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 12.7 10.8 14.6 7.6
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
24: Thousand Oaks & Frontage Road 01/10/2024
Future - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR

L O S BB BA
Approach Delay 12.7 10.8 11.5
Approach LOS B B B
Stops (vph) 652 477 123 58
Fuel Used(gal) 21 10 2 1
CO Emissions (g/hr) 1447 714 144 88
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 281 139 28 17
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 335 165 33 20
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 0 0 0 0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 85 62 33 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 132 99 m72 m20
Internal Link Dist (ft) 171 751 743
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1415 1415 708 1191
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.53 0.23 0.11
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 40
Actuated Cycle Length: 40
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2: and 6:SBL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 40
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.67
Intersection Signal Delay: 11.8 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Splits and Phases: 24: Thousand Oaks & Frontage Road

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
33: Rancho & Thousand Oaks 01/10/2024
Future - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 35 477 294 369 715 88 247 282 365 65 269 20 Future Volume (vph) 35 477 294 369 715 88 247 282 365 65 269 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.984 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3483 0 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.406 0.565
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3483 0 756 3539 1583 1052 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 320 16 397 195
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 296 389 511 569
Travel Time (s) 6.7 8.8 11.6 12.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 518 320 401 777 96 268 307 397 71 292 22 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 518 320 401 873 0 268 307 397 71 292 22 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+pt NA Prot pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 52216
Permitted Phases 4 2 6 6
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 10.0 27.0 27.0 23.0 40.0 21.0 36.0 36.0 9.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split (%) 10.5% 28.4% 28.4% 24.2% 42.1% 22.1% 37.9% 37.9% 9.5% 25.3% 25.3% Maximum Green (s) 6.0 23.0 23.0 19.0 36.0 17.0 32.0 32.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 6.0 23.0 23.0 19.0 36.0 41.0 32.0 32.0 25.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.38 0.43 0.34 0.34 0.26 0.21 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.61 0.51 0.58 0.66 0.53 0.26 0.50 0.23 0.39 0.05 Control Delay 51.4 35.5 6.7 38.4 26.8 22.4 23.6 4.8 19.4 34.1 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 51.4 35.5 6.7 38.4 26.8 22.4 23.6 4.8 19.4 34.1 0.1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings
33: Rancho & Thousand Oaks 01/10/2024
Future - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

L O S DDADC CCABCA
Approach Delay 25.7 30.4 15.6 29.5
Approach LOS C C B C
Stops (vph) 35 411 32 326 631 159 196 33 47 225 0
Fuel Used(gal) 1 10 3 6 10 342170
CO Emissions (g/hr) 61 693 221 406 720 209 249 140 99 479 19 NOx Emissions (g/hr) 12 135 43 79 140 41 48 27 19 93 4
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 14 161 51 94 167 48 58 32 23 111 5 Dilemma Vehicles (#) 00000 000000
Queue Length 50th (ft) 22 146 0 113 221 105 70 0 25 80 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 55 200 66 162 288 167 103 62 51 120 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 216 309 431 489
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 111 856 625 686 1329 507 1192 796 314 745 487 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.34 0.61 0.51 0.58 0.66 0.53 0.26 0.50 0.23 0.39 0.05 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 95
Actuated Cycle Length: 95
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.66
Intersection Signal Delay: 25.0 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 33: Rancho & Thousand Oaks

500 Thousand Oaks Boulevard

Future Conditions + Project

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: Moorpark Road & Thousand Oaks Blvd 01/10/2024
Future + Project - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 9 22 45 186 65 122 159 619 463 213 546 21 Future Volume (vph) 9 22 45 186 65 122 159 619 463 213 546 21 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 0.923 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.994
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3129 1441 3433 1863 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5055 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3129 1441 3433 1863 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5055 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 25 118 133 503 6
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 192 672 498 415
Travel Time (s) 4.4 15.3 11.3 9.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 10 24 49 202 71 133 173 673 503 232 593 23 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 50%
Lane Group Flow (vph) 10 49 24 202 71 133 173 673 503 232 616 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 24 24
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Prot Prot NA Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 74438852216
Permitted Phases
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 9.0 21.0 21.0 20.0 32.0 32.0 19.0 58.0 58.0 21.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 7.5% 17.5% 17.5% 16.7% 26.7% 26.7% 15.8% 48.3% 48.3% 17.5% 50.0% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 17.0 17.0 16.0 28.0 28.0 15.0 54.0 54.0 17.0 56.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 5.0 17.0 17.0 16.0 28.0 28.0 15.0 54.0 54.0 17.0 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.45 0.45 0.14 0.47 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.44 0.16 0.28 0.40 0.29 0.51 0.48 0.26 Control Delay 59.8 27.1 0.5 51.3 38.0 7.8 51.5 21.4 3.7 63.5 11.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 59.8 27.1 0.5 51.3 38.0 7.8 51.5 21.4 3.7 63.5 11.9 Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: Moorpark Road & Thousand Oaks Blvd 01/10/2024
Future + Project - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

L O S ECADDADCAEB
Approach Delay 23.3 34.7 18.6 26.0
Approach LOS C C B C
Stops (vph) 11 22 0 168 51 17 143 377 29 208 167
Fuel Used(gal) 00062237256
CO Emissions (g/hr) 13 31 2 417 131 162 215 502 161 365 405 NOx Emissions (g/hr) 2 6 0 81 25 32 42 98 31 71 79
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 3 7 1 97 30 38 50 116 37 85 94
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 00000000000
Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 8 0 75 44 0 64 118 0 96 52
Queue Length 95th (ft) 26 28 0 113 85 50 101 148 60 138 71 Internal Link Dist (ft) 112 592 418 335
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 73 464 305 457 434 471 429 2288 989 486 2362 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.44 0.16 0.28 0.40 0.29 0.51 0.48 0.26 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.51
Intersection Signal Delay: 23.5 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: Moorpark Road & Thousand Oaks Blvd

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
10: Lombard Street/Office Dwy & Thousand Oaks Boulevard 01/10/2024 Future + Project - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 21 407 21 49 307 14 55 0 17 3 0 12 Future Volume (vph) 21 407 21 49 307 14 55 0 17 3 0 12
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.993 0.994 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.998 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3507 0 1770 3518 0 1770 0 1583 1770 0 1583 Flt Permitted 0.998 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3507 0 1770 3518 0 1770 0 1583 1770 0 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 1027 262 327 171
Travel Time (s) 23.3 6.0 7.4 3.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 23 442 23 53 334 15 60 0 18 3 0 13
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 488 0 53 349 0 60 0 18 3 0 13
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane Yes
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop Yield
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
11: Lombard/DWY2 & Lombard Street 01/10/2024
Future + Project - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 5 5 44 12 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 5 5 44 12 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1863 1863 1583 1770 0
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1863 1863 1583 1770 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 678 232 327
Travel Time (s) 15.4 5.3 7.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 5 5 48 13 0
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 5 5 48 13 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Left Right
Median Width(ft) 0 0 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Yield Stop Yield
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
12: Thousand Oaks Boulevard/Thousand Oaks & Hodencamp 01/10/2024 Future + Project - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 32 396 0 26 285 137 0 0 0 141 0 85 Future Volume (vph) 32 396 0 26 285 137 0 0 0 141 0 85
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 0 1770 3539 1583 0 0 0 3433 0 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.502 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 0 935 3539 1583 0 0 0 3433 0 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 149 109
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 262 1493 251 609
Travel Time (s) 6.0 33.9 5.7 13.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 35 430 0 28 310 149 0 0 0 153 0 92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 35 430 0 28 310 149 0 0 0 153 0 92 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 24 24
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane Yes
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 8 6
Permitted Phases 8 8 6
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 8.0 28.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (%) 16.0% 56.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 44.0% 44.0% Maximum Green (s) 4.0 24.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 4.0 24.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 18.0 18.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.48 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.36 0.36
v/c Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.27 0.25 0.12 0.14
Control Delay 26.2 8.2 13.0 13.5 4.1 18.1 10.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 26.2 8.2 13.0 13.5 4.1 18.1 10.3
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
12: Thousand Oaks Boulevard/Thousand Oaks & Hodencamp 01/10/2024 Future + Project - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

LOS C A B B A B B
Approach Delay 9.6 10.6 15.2
Approach LOS A B B
Stops (vph) 34 211 22 198 24 124 47
Fuel Used(gal) 0 3 1 7 3 2 1
CO Emissions (g/hr) 30 184 44 471 180 158 75
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 6 36 9 92 35 31 15
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 7 43 10 109 42 37 17
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 35 6 34 0 23 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 31 57 20 59 29 46 31
Internal Link Dist (ft) 182 1413 171 529
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 141 1698 299 1132 607 1235 639
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.27 0.25 0.12 0.14
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 50
Actuated Cycle Length: 50
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2: and 6:SBL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.27
Intersection Signal Delay: 11.1 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 12: Thousand Oaks Boulevard/Thousand Oaks & Hodencamp

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
17: Hodencamp Road & Hillcrest 01/10/2024
Future + Project - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 17 145 41 48 311 128 33 96 21 129 164 49 Future Volume (vph) 17 145 41 48 311 128 33 96 21 129 164 49 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.956 0.973 0.966
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 3383 0 1770 3444 0 1770 3419 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.608 0.671
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 3383 0 1133 3444 0 1250 3419 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 109 135 23 53
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 1053 560 357 554
Travel Time (s) 23.9 12.7 8.1 12.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 158 45 52 338 139 36 104 23 140 178 53 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 158 45 52 477 0 36 127 0 140 231 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 9.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 Total Split (%) 16.0% 40.0% 40.0% 18.0% 42.0% 42.0% 42.0% 42.0% 42.0% Maximum Green (s) 4.0 16.0 16.0 5.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 4.0 16.0 16.0 5.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.27 0.08 0.29 0.38 0.09 0.11 0.33 0.19
Control Delay 23.6 14.1 0.7 25.6 9.9 8.3 6.5 15.0 9.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 23.6 14.1 0.7 25.6 9.9 8.3 6.5 15.0 9.4
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
17: Hodencamp Road & Hillcrest 01/10/2024
Future + Project - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

L O S C B A C AA AB A
Approach Delay 12.2 11.4 6.9 11.5
Approach LOS BBAB
Stops (vph) 20 102 1 47 222 20 52 91 108
Fuel Used(gal) 0411 1 0 01 12
CO Emissions (g/hr) 35 249 52 94 685 29 93 102 135
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 7 48 10 18 133 6 18 20 26
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 8 58 12 22 159 7 21 24 31
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 00000 00 00
Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 34 0 15 37 8 12 30 18
Queue Length 95th (ft) 20 70 3 41 67 15 13 66 37
Internal Link Dist (ft) 973 480 277 474
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 141 596 580 177 1239 385 1186 425 1197 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Storage Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.27 0.08 0.29 0.38 0.09 0.11 0.33 0.19 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 50
Actuated Cycle Length: 50
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.38
Intersection Signal Delay: 11.0 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 17: Hodencamp Road & Hillcrest

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
21: Moorpark Road & Hillcrest 01/10/2024
Future + Project - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 47 104 110 83 129 79 75 575 78 97 581 29 Future Volume (vph) 47 104 110 83 129 79 75 575 78 97 581 29 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.943 0.982 0.993
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 1770 3337 0 3433 4994 0 3433 3514 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.684 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1583 1274 3337 0 3433 4994 0 3433 3514 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 120 86 26 6
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 183 522 376 623
Travel Time (s) 4.2 11.9 8.5 14.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 51 113 120 90 140 86 82 625 85 105 632 32 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 51 113 120 90 226 0 82 710 0 105 664 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 24 24
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 13.0 46.0 46.0 33.0 33.0 16.0 56.0 18.0 58.0 Total Split (%) 10.8% 38.3% 38.3% 27.5% 27.5% 13.3% 46.7% 15.0% 48.3% Maximum Green (s) 9.0 42.0 42.0 29.0 29.0 12.0 52.0 14.0 54.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0000 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 9.0 42.0 42.0 29.0 29.0 12.0 52.0 14.0 54.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.35 0.35 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.43 0.12 0.45 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.17 0.19 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.33 0.26 0.42
Control Delay 54.2 27.9 5.4 40.3 23.3 67.8 12.0 50.2 23.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 54.2 27.9 5.4 40.3 23.3 67.8 12.0 50.2 23.2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings
21: Moorpark Road & Hillcrest 01/10/2024
Future + Project - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

LOS D C A D C E B D C
Approach Delay 23.1 28.2 17.7 26.9
Approach LOS C C B C
Stops (vph) 42 71 13 66 102 74 152 87 396
Fuel Used(gal) 11035 26 28
CO Emissions (g/hr) 57 79 25 177 368 133 451 136 562
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 11 15 5 34 72 26 88 26 109
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 13 18 6 41 85 31 105 31 130
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 00000 00 00
Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 60 0 57 45 34 47 38 177
Queue Length 95th (ft) 40 105 41 107 80 62 65 67 227
Internal Link Dist (ft) 103 442 296 543
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 257 652 632 307 871 343 2178 400 1584 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Storage Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.17 0.19 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.33 0.26 0.42 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.42
Intersection Signal Delay: 23.2 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 21: Moorpark Road & Hillcrest

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
23: Frontage Road/Highway 23 Off-Ramp & Hillcrest 01/10/2024 Future + Project - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 386 15 7 177 0000 2 8 0 3 8 0 2 8 4 Future Volume (vph) 0 386 15 7 177 0000 2 8 0 3 8 0 2 8 4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.994 0.955
Flt Protected 0.950 0.985
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3518 0 1770 1863 00000 3329 0
Flt Permitted 0.499 0.985
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3518 0 930 1863 00000 3329 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 11 201
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 112 455 823 414
Travel Time (s) 2.5 10.3 18.7 9.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 420 16 8 192 0000 3 0 4 4 1 3 3 0 9
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 436 0 8 192 00000 1026 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 6
Permitted Phases 8 6
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.02 0.26 0.71
Control Delay 8.8 7.6 9.2 11.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.8 7.6 9.2 11.2
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
23: Frontage Road/Highway 23 Off-Ramp & Hillcrest 01/10/2024 Future + Project - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

LOS A A A B
Approach Delay 8.8 9.2 11.2
Approach LOS A A B
Stops (vph) 241 7 109 593
Fuel Used(gal) 9 0 3 8
CO Emissions (g/hr) 634 10 238 592
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 123 2 46 115
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 147 2 55 137
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 0 0 0 0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 32 1 27 72
Queue Length 95th (ft) 55 6 57 124
Internal Link Dist (ft) 32 375 743 334
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1413 372 745 1452
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.02 0.26 0.71
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 40
Actuated Cycle Length: 40
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2: and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 40
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.71
Intersection Signal Delay: 10.3 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 23: Frontage Road/Highway 23 Off-Ramp & Hillcrest

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
24: Thousand Oaks & Frontage Road 01/10/2024
Future + Project - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 588 476 0 209 190
Future Volume (vph) 0 588 476 0 209 190
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3539 3539 0 1770 2787
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3539 3539 0 1770 2787
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 207
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 251 831 823
Travel Time (s) 5.7 18.9 18.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 639 517 0 227 207
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 639 517 0 227 207
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Left Right
Median Width(ft) 0 0 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 4 8 6
Permitted Phases 6
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.37 0.32 0.17
Control Delay 10.1 9.4 16.4 8.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 10.1 9.4 16.4 8.2
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
24: Thousand Oaks & Frontage Road 01/10/2024
Future + Project - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR

L O S BA BA
Approach Delay 10.1 9.4 12.5
Approach LOS B A B
Stops (vph) 390 302 192 117
Fuel Used(gal) 13 7 3 2
CO Emissions (g/hr) 935 473 217 153
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 182 92 42 30
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 217 110 50 35
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 0 0 0 0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 51 40 54 5
Queue Length 95th (ft) 83 66 m83 m21
Internal Link Dist (ft) 171 751 743
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1415 1415 708 1239
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.37 0.32 0.17
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 40
Actuated Cycle Length: 40
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2: and 6:SBL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 40
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.45
Intersection Signal Delay: 10.5 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Splits and Phases: 24: Thousand Oaks & Frontage Road

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
33: Rancho & Thousand Oaks 01/10/2024
Future + Project - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 41 380 276 303 368 76 220 276 314 101 282 32 Future Volume (vph) 41 380 276 303 368 76 220 276 314 101 282 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.974 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3447 0 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.416 0.569
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3447 0 775 3539 1583 1060 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 300 28 341 195
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 296 389 511 569
Travel Time (s) 6.7 8.8 11.6 12.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 45 413 300 329 400 83 239 300 341 110 307 35 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 45 413 300 329 483 0 239 300 341 110 307 35 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+pt NA Prot pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 52216
Permitted Phases 4 2 6 6
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 11.0 27.0 27.0 21.0 37.0 20.0 36.0 36.0 11.0 27.0 27.0 Total Split (%) 11.6% 28.4% 28.4% 22.1% 38.9% 21.1% 37.9% 37.9% 11.6% 28.4% 28.4% Maximum Green (s) 7.0 23.0 23.0 17.0 33.0 16.0 32.0 32.0 7.0 23.0 23.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 7.0 23.0 23.0 17.0 33.0 43.0 32.0 32.0 30.0 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.35 0.45 0.34 0.34 0.32 0.24 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.48 0.49 0.54 0.40 0.46 0.25 0.45 0.28 0.36 0.07 Control Delay 49.6 33.1 6.7 39.1 23.2 19.8 23.5 4.7 18.3 31.3 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.6 33.1 6.7 39.1 23.2 19.8 23.5 4.7 18.3 31.3 0.2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings
33: Rancho & Thousand Oaks 01/10/2024
Future + Project - AM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

L O S DCADC BCABCA
Approach Delay 23.6 29.6 15.2 25.7
Approach LOS C C B C
Stops (vph) 39 317 31 267 305 135 192 29 69 227 0
Fuel Used(gal) 18355 332270
CO Emissions (g/hr) 69 535 208 336 359 175 243 120 151 488 31 NOx Emissions (g/hr) 13 104 40 65 70 34 47 23 29 95 6
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 16 124 48 78 83 41 56 28 35 113 7
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 00000 000000
Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 112 0 93 107 88 68 0 38 81 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 62 159 64 137 151 142 101 58 70 120 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 216 309 431 489
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 130 856 610 614 1215 518 1192 759 387 856 531 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.48 0.49 0.54 0.40 0.46 0.25 0.45 0.28 0.36 0.07 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 95
Actuated Cycle Length: 95
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.54
Intersection Signal Delay: 23.1 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 33: Rancho & Thousand Oaks

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: Moorpark Road & Thousand Oaks Blvd 01/10/2024
Future + Project - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 33 76 226 399 137 298 288 885 344 187 875 20 Future Volume (vph) 33 76 226 399 137 298 288 885 344 187 875 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 0.910 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.997
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3085 1441 3433 1863 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5070 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3085 1441 3433 1863 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5070 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 123 155 324 374 3
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 192 672 498 415
Travel Time (s) 4.4 15.3 11.3 9.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 36 83 246 434 149 324 313 962 374 203 951 22 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 50%
Lane Group Flow (vph) 36 206 123 434 149 324 313 962 374 203 973 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 24 24
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Prot Prot NA Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 74438852216
Permitted Phases
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 12.0 22.0 22.0 30.0 40.0 40.0 25.0 50.0 50.0 18.0 43.0 Total Split (%) 10.0% 18.3% 18.3% 25.0% 33.3% 33.3% 20.8% 41.7% 41.7% 15.0% 35.8% Maximum Green (s) 8.0 18.0 18.0 26.0 36.0 36.0 21.0 46.0 46.0 14.0 39.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 8.0 18.0 18.0 26.0 36.0 36.0 21.0 46.0 46.0 14.0 39.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.22 0.30 0.30 0.18 0.38 0.38 0.12 0.32 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.36 0.35 0.58 0.27 0.46 0.52 0.49 0.45 0.51 0.59 Control Delay 60.5 20.9 6.2 45.8 33.6 5.7 48.5 29.2 4.3 57.3 26.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.5 20.9 6.2 45.8 33.6 5.7 48.5 29.2 4.3 57.3 26.4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: Moorpark Road & Thousand Oaks Blvd 01/10/2024
Future + Project - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

L O S ECADCADCAEC
Approach Delay 19.8 29.5 27.2 31.8
Approach LOS B C C C
Stops (vph) 32 70 7 351 102 28 255 651 26 180 445
Fuel Used(gal) 1 1 0 12 4 5 5 12 2 4 13
CO Emissions (g/hr) 44 103 24 861 265 382 375 860 124 303 894 NOx Emissions (g/hr) 9 20 5 167 51 74 73 167 24 59 174
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 10 24 6 199 61 89 87 199 29 70 207 Dilemma Vehicles (#) 00000000000
Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 31 0 156 88 0 114 205 0 82 134 Queue Length 95th (ft) 63 69 35 210 144 66 161 247 61 119 198 Internal Link Dist (ft) 112 592 418 335
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 118 567 347 743 558 701 600 1949 837 400 1649 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.36 0.35 0.58 0.27 0.46 0.52 0.49 0.45 0.51 0.59 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.59
Intersection Signal Delay: 28.4 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: Moorpark Road & Thousand Oaks Blvd

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
10: Lombard Street/Office Dwy & Thousand Oaks Boulevard 01/10/2024 Future + Project - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 6 505 36 41 565 5 44 1 71 12 0 25
Future Volume (vph) 6 505 36 41 565 5 44 1 71 12 0 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.990 0.999 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.999 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3500 0 1770 3536 0 1770 0 1583 1770 0 1583 Flt Permitted 0.999 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3500 0 1770 3536 0 1770 0 1583 1770 0 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 1027 262 327 171
Travel Time (s) 23.3 6.0 7.4 3.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 7 549 39 45 614 5 48 1 77 13 0 27
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 595 0 45 619 0 48 1 77 13 0 27
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane Yes
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop Yield
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
11: Lombard/DWY2 & Lombard Street 01/10/2024
Future + Project - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 10 6 25 25 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 10 6 25 25 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1863 1863 1583 1770 0
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1863 1863 1583 1770 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 678 275 327
Travel Time (s) 15.4 6.3 7.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 11 7 27 27 0
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 11 7 27 27 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Left Right
Median Width(ft) 0 0 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Yield Stop Yield
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
12: Thousand Oaks Boulevard/Thousand Oaks & Hodencamp 01/10/2024 Future + Project - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 90 479 0 54 538 226 0 0 0 206 0 75 Future Volume (vph) 90 479 0 54 538 226 0 0 0 206 0 75
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.995 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 0 0 3522 1583 0 0 0 3433 0 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.867 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 0 0 3068 1583 0 0 0 3433 0 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 246 109
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 262 1493 278 609
Travel Time (s) 6.0 33.9 6.3 13.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 98 521 0 59 585 246 0 0 0 224 0 82
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 521 0 0 644 246 0 0 0 224 0 82 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 24 24
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane Yes
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 8 6
Permitted Phases 8 8 6
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 10.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (%) 20.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 6.0 26.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 6.0 26.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.52 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.28 0.66 0.37 0.20 0.14
Control Delay 28.2 7.3 18.5 4.1 18.4 8.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 28.2 7.3 18.5 4.1 18.4 8.8
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
12: Thousand Oaks Boulevard/Thousand Oaks & Hodencamp 01/10/2024 Future + Project - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

LOS C A B A B A
Approach Delay 10.6 14.5 15.9
Approach LOS B B B
Stops (vph) 83 243 481 32 178 34
Fuel Used(gal) 1 3 15 4 3 1
CO Emissions (g/hr) 81 212 1046 295 231 62
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 16 41 204 57 45 12
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 19 49 243 68 54 14
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 40 83 0 34 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 64 63 130 38 57 25
Internal Link Dist (ft) 182 1413 198 529
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 212 1840 981 673 1098 580
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.28 0.66 0.37 0.20 0.14
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 50
Actuated Cycle Length: 50
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2: and 6:SBL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.66
Intersection Signal Delay: 13.4 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 12: Thousand Oaks Boulevard/Thousand Oaks & Hodencamp

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
17: Hodencamp Road & Hillcrest 01/10/2024
Future + Project - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 42 389 68 41 373 168 49 198 37 156 156 39 Future Volume (vph) 42 389 68 41 373 168 49 198 37 156 156 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.953 0.976 0.970
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 3373 0 1770 3454 0 1770 3433 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.619 0.594
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 3373 0 1153 3454 0 1106 3433 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 109 158 40 42
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 1053 560 357 554
Travel Time (s) 23.9 12.7 8.1 12.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 46 423 74 45 405 183 53 215 40 170 170 42 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 423 74 45 588 0 53 255 0 170 212 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 9.0 22.0 22.0 8.0 21.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (%) 18.0% 44.0% 44.0% 16.0% 42.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 18.0 18.0 4.0 17.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 5.0 18.0 18.0 4.0 17.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.63 0.12 0.32 0.47 0.14 0.23 0.48 0.19
Control Delay 24.8 18.4 2.1 28.1 10.7 9.9 8.1 19.3 10.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.8 18.4 2.1 28.1 10.7 9.9 8.1 19.3 10.3
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
17: Hodencamp Road & Hillcrest 01/10/2024
Future + Project - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

L O S C B A C BA AB B
Approach Delay 16.7 12.0 8.4 14.3
Approach LOS BBAB
Stops (vph) 42 310 6 43 290 34 132 124 104
Fuel Used(gal) 1 10 1 1 12 1 3 2 2
CO Emissions (g/hr) 83 706 89 83 857 46 202 138 128
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 16 137 17 16 167 9 39 27 25
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 19 164 21 19 199 11 47 32 30
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 00000 00 00
Queue Length 50th (ft) 13 99 0 13 48 13 28 39 18
Queue Length 95th (ft) 37 176 12 37 84 m25 36 86 37
Internal Link Dist (ft) 973 480 277 474
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 177 670 639 141 1251 368 1132 353 1127 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Storage Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.63 0.12 0.32 0.47 0.14 0.23 0.48 0.19 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 50
Actuated Cycle Length: 50
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.63
Intersection Signal Delay: 13.2 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Splits and Phases: 17: Hodencamp Road & Hillcrest

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
21: Moorpark Road & Hillcrest 01/10/2024
Future + Project - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 174 248 279 150 263 178 191 911 92 126 634 69 Future Volume (vph) 174 248 279 150 263 178 191 911 92 126 634 69 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.940 0.986 0.985
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 1770 3327 0 3433 5014 0 3433 3486 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.593 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1583 1105 3327 0 3433 5014 0 3433 3486 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 290 137 16 11
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 183 522 376 623
Travel Time (s) 4.2 11.9 8.5 14.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 189 270 303 163 286 193 208 990 100 137 689 75 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 270 303 163 479 0 208 1090 0 137 764 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 24 24
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 17.0 55.0 55.0 38.0 38.0 18.0 50.0 15.0 47.0 Total Split (%) 14.2% 45.8% 45.8% 31.7% 31.7% 15.0% 41.7% 12.5% 39.2% Maximum Green (s) 13.0 51.0 51.0 34.0 34.0 14.0 46.0 11.0 43.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0000 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 13.0 51.0 51.0 34.0 34.0 14.0 46.0 11.0 43.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.42 0.42 0.28 0.28 0.12 0.38 0.09 0.36 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.34 0.36 0.52 0.46 0.52 0.56 0.44 0.61
Control Delay 55.8 24.7 4.2 43.3 26.4 75.9 14.6 56.3 33.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.8 24.7 4.2 43.3 26.4 75.9 14.6 56.3 33.6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings
21: Moorpark Road & Hillcrest 01/10/2024
Future + Project - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

L O S ECADC EB EC
Approach Delay 24.3 30.7 24.5 37.1
Approach LOS CCCD
Stops (vph) 161 163 26 125 254 188 271 117 554
Fuel Used(gal) 3315 1 2 5 1 1 3 1 1
CO Emissions (g/hr) 218 175 55 328 813 361 746 189 789
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 42 34 11 64 158 70 145 37 154
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 50 41 13 76 189 84 173 44 183
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 00000 00 00
Queue Length 50th (ft) 72 138 6 106 113 87 84 52 250
Queue Length 95th (ft) 111 206 59 180 164 128 108 85 316 Internal Link Dist (ft) 103 442 296 543
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 371 791 839 313 1040 400 1931 314 1256 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Storage Cap Reductn 00000 00 00
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.51 0.34 0.36 0.52 0.46 0.52 0.56 0.44 0.61 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.61
Intersection Signal Delay: 28.7 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 21: Moorpark Road & Hillcrest

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
23: Frontage Road/Highway 23 Off-Ramp & Hillcest/Hillcrest 01/10/2024 Future + Project - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 596 12 14 374 0000 1 8 8 2 4 1 2 8 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 596 12 14 374 0000 1 8 8 2 4 1 2 8 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.997 0.941
Flt Protected 0.950 0.987
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3529 0 1770 1863 00000 3287 0
Flt Permitted 0.357 0.987
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3529 0 665 1863 00000 3287 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 6 291
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 112 455 823 414
Travel Time (s) 2.5 10.3 18.7 9.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 648 13 15 407 0000 2 0 4 2 6 2 3 0 4
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 661 0 15 407 00000 7 7 00
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 6
Permitted Phases 8 6
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.06 0.55 0.52
Control Delay 10.1 8.1 12.6 6.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 10.1 8.1 12.6 6.9
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
23: Frontage Road/Highway 23 Off-Ramp & Hillcest/Hillcrest 01/10/2024 Future + Project - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

LOS B A B A
Approach Delay 10.1 12.5 6.9
Approach LOS B B A
Stops (vph) 403 12 269 303
Fuel Used(gal) 14 0 8 5
CO Emissions (g/hr) 987 20 535 346
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 192 4 104 67
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 229 5 124 80
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 0 0 0 0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 53 2 65 36
Queue Length 95th (ft) 85 9 125 68
Internal Link Dist (ft) 32 375 743 334
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1415 266 745 1489
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.06 0.55 0.52
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 40
Actuated Cycle Length: 40
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2: and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 40
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.55
Intersection Signal Delay: 9.3 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 23: Frontage Road/Highway 23 Off-Ramp & Hillcest/Hillcrest

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
24: Thousand Oaks & Frontage Road 01/10/2024
Future + Project - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 881 738 0 147 123
Future Volume (vph) 0 881 738 0 147 123
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3539 3539 0 1770 2787
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3539 3539 0 1770 2787
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 133
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 251 831 823
Travel Time (s) 5.7 18.9 18.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 958 802 0 160 134
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 958 802 0 160 134
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Left Right
Median Width(ft) 0 0 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 4 8 6
Permitted Phases 6
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.57 0.23 0.11
Control Delay 12.8 11.3 14.5 7.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 12.8 11.3 14.5 7.6
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
24: Thousand Oaks & Frontage Road 01/10/2024
Future + Project - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR

L O S BB BA
Approach Delay 12.8 11.3 11.3
Approach LOS B B B
Stops (vph) 664 520 123 56
Fuel Used(gal) 21 11 2 1
CO Emissions (g/hr) 1467 772 144 90
NOx Emissions (g/hr) 285 150 28 18
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 340 179 33 21
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 0 0 0 0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 86 68 33 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 134 107 m71 m21
Internal Link Dist (ft) 171 751 743
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1415 1415 708 1194
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 0.57 0.23 0.11
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 40
Actuated Cycle Length: 40
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2: and 6:SBL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 40
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.68
Intersection Signal Delay: 12.0 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Splits and Phases: 24: Thousand Oaks & Frontage Road

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
33: Rancho & Thousand Oaks 01/10/2024
Future + Project - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 35 480 305 369 720 88 291 282 365 65 169 20 Future Volume (vph) 35 480 305 369 720 88 291 282 365 65 169 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.984 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3483 0 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.509 0.565
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3483 0 948 3539 1583 1052 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 332 16 397 195
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 296 389 511 569
Travel Time (s) 6.7 8.8 11.6 12.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 522 332 401 783 96 316 307 397 71 184 22 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 522 332 401 879 0 316 307 397 71 184 22 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+pt NA Prot pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 52216
Permitted Phases 4 2 6 6
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 10.0 27.0 27.0 23.0 40.0 23.0 36.0 36.0 9.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (%) 10.5% 28.4% 28.4% 24.2% 42.1% 24.2% 37.9% 37.9% 9.5% 23.2% 23.2% Maximum Green (s) 6.0 23.0 23.0 19.0 36.0 19.0 32.0 32.0 5.0 18.0 18.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 6.0 23.0 23.0 19.0 36.0 41.0 32.0 32.0 23.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.38 0.43 0.34 0.34 0.24 0.19 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.61 0.52 0.58 0.66 0.55 0.26 0.50 0.24 0.27 0.05 Control Delay 51.4 35.6 6.8 38.4 26.9 22.9 23.6 4.8 20.1 34.2 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 51.4 35.6 6.8 38.4 26.9 22.9 23.6 4.8 20.1 34.2 0.2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings
33: Rancho & Thousand Oaks 01/10/2024
Future + Project - PM Peak 1:40 pm 09/06/2023 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

L O S DDADC CCACCA
Approach Delay 25.5 30.5 16.1 27.9
Approach LOS C C B C
Stops (vph) 35 415 34 326 637 196 196 33 48 140 0
Fuel Used(gal) 1 10 3 6 10 442140
CO Emissions (g/hr) 61 698 230 406 727 252 249 140 100 301 20 NOx Emissions (g/hr) 12 136 45 79 142 49 48 27 20 59 4
VOC Emissions (g/hr) 14 162 53 94 169 58 58 32 23 70 5
Dilemma Vehicles (#) 00000 000000
Queue Length 50th (ft) 22 147 0 113 223 128 70 0 25 50 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 55 202 67 162 290 199 103 62 51 81 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 216 309 431 489
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 111 856 634 686 1329 573 1192 796 292 670 457 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.34 0.61 0.52 0.58 0.66 0.55 0.26 0.50 0.24 0.27 0.05 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 95
Actuated Cycle Length: 95
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.66
Intersection Signal Delay: 24.8 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 33: Rancho & Thousand Oaks

500 Thousand Oaks Boulevard

Appendix C: Signal Warrant Analysis

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 850 (FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)

Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 851 (FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)

Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 852 (FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)

Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 853 (FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)

Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 854 (FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)

Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 850 (FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)

Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 851 (FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)

Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 852 (FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)

Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 853 (FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)

Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 854 (FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)

Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

500 Thousand Oaks Boulevard

Appendix D: VMT Analysis

Iteris, Inc.| 1

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

To:

Michael Brust
WGZE
7812 Edinger Avenue, Suite 302
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
From:

Jennifer Emerson-Martin, PE
Iteris, Inc.
801 South Grand Avenue, Suite 750
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Date: October 4, 2023

RE: 500 Thousand Oaks Blvd – CEQA Transportation Analysis

INTRODUCTION
This memorandum presents Iteris’ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis of the potential mixed-use development at 500 Thousand Oaks Boulevard in the City of Thousand Oaks. The mixed-use development consists of construction of 328 multi-family units (44 units would be low-income housing), 5,300 square feet of general commercial space, and 3,200 square feet of restaurant. The development site is located at the southeastern corner of Thousand Oaks Boulevard/Lombard Street and southwestern corner of Thousand Oaks Boulevard/Long Court.

CEQA analysis for determining potential significant transportation impacts from vehicles transitioned in 2020 from an automobile delay or capacity measure to a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric as required by Senate Bill (SB) 743. VMT is an area-wide performance measure which helps compare the overall performance of a development and is also used as a metric to ultimately assess the transportation environmental impacts. VMT is generally calculated using a travel demand model that captures the movement of all trips over a highway network. For this analysis, the time period was defined as a 24-hour period on a typical weekday.

METHODOLOGY
Iteris utilized the Ventura County Transportation Model (VCTM) to generate VMT statistics, following the City’s administrative policy on CEQA transportation analysis. This land use based model, which is a subarea model of the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) travel demand model, is consistent with the 2016 SCAG RTP/SCS travel-demand model assumptions and inputs. The model consists of a 2016 base year scenario and 2040 future year scenario. For the purposes of this analysis, the 2016 base year scenario was utilized. It should be noted the 2016 base year is the regionwide standard for existing and baseline conditions analysis.

The VCTM consists of a detailed traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure in the City of Thousand Oaks. The model consists of 110 TAZ’s within the City. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the proposed development’s TAZs (60182501 and 60182601) in relation to the region.

Iteris, Inc.| 2

Figure 1: Proposed Development TAZ Location

The following land use allocation was applied to the project TAZs:

• TAZ 60182501 (east) – 154 multi-family units, 3,200 sq ft. of restaurant, and 3,800 sf ft. of commercial.
• TAZ 60182601 (west) – 174 multi-family units and 1,500 sq ft. of commercial.

VMT ANALYSIS
This section describes the potential screening, thresholds of significance, and VMT impact evaluation for the proposed development.

Screening Criteria
The City utilizes a screening criteria in order to provide CEQA relief to projects that support the State’s GHG emission goals, and those projects are presumed as less than significant. The proposed project does not meet any of the screening criteria, thus is required to undergo a CEQA Transportation Assessment.

Iteris, Inc.| 3

Thresholds of Significance
The City has adopted an administrative policy stating that thresholds of significance will be determined on a case-by-case basis. For the purposes of this project, the thresholds of significance will be as follows:

• A significant impact would occur if the VMT per capita or VMT per employee exceeds the citywide average VMT per capita or per employee of the baseline.

VMT Impact Evaluation
The proposed project consists of commercial and residential use, thus the VMT will be reported as Work-Based VMT per Employee and Home-Based VMT per Resident calculated as such:

𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝑝𝑝𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑝𝑝𝐸𝐸𝑊𝑊𝐸𝐸𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 = 𝑉𝑉𝑊𝑊𝑇𝑇𝑊𝑊𝐸𝐸 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝑉𝑉𝑊𝑊𝑇𝑇𝑊𝑊𝐸𝐸 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝑁𝑁𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝑊𝑊𝑜𝑜 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑝𝑝𝐸𝐸𝑊𝑊𝐸𝐸𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊

𝐻𝐻𝑊𝑊𝐸𝐸𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝑝𝑝𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝑅𝑅𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑅𝑅𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑅𝑅𝑇𝑇 = 𝑉𝑉𝑊𝑊𝑇𝑇𝑊𝑊𝐸𝐸 𝐻𝐻𝑊𝑊𝐸𝐸𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝑉𝑉𝑊𝑊𝑇𝑇𝑊𝑊𝐸𝐸 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝑁𝑁𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝑊𝑊𝑜𝑜 𝑅𝑅𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑅𝑅𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑅𝑅𝑇𝑇𝑊𝑊

To determine the project’s potential level of impact, a new VCTM scenario including the proposed project land use within TAZ 60182501 and 60182601 was prepared, utilizing the existing year (2016) of the model. As the project is located in two separate zones, the calculation of VMT per capita is calculated as the combined sum of metrics from both zones. From this new model scenario output, the following two metrics will be used for significant impact determination:

• Project TAZs daily residential VMT per capita;
• Citywide daily residential VMT per capita;
• Project TAZs daily employment VMT per employee;
• Citywide daily employment VMT per employee.

The project VCTM scenario resulted in the following outputs:

• The City-wide average daily VMT per resident , for use within this analysis only, is 15.32; and the project TAZ-level daily VMT per resident is 11.05.
• The City-wide average daily VMT per employee, for use within this analysis only, is 22.55; and the project TAZ-level daily VMT per employee is 21.72.

The project TAZ s’ daily residential VMT per capita is approximately 28% less than the Cit ywide average daily residential VMT per capita. The project TAZs’ daily employment VMT per employee is approximately 4% less than the Citywide average daily employment VMT per employee. Neither the project’s estimated residential VMT per capita nor commercial VMT per employee exceed the respective Citywide averages (for these metrics). Thus, the proposed project is not fo recast to result in a significant transportation impact.

Iteris, Inc.| 4
Conclusion
The mixed-use development consists of construction of 328 multi -family units (44 units would be low - income housing), 5,300 square feet of general commercial space, and 3,200 square feet of restaurant.

The pr
oject does not meet any CEQA transportation screening criteria, thus a CEQA Transportation Assessment was required. Based on the described thresholds of significance, the proposed project would not result in a significant transportation impact under CEQA Checklist XVII. Transportation b):
“W
ould the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)—the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts for land use projects:
vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance?” CDD:420-82/cc/H:COMMON/Planning Commission/Agenda Packet/2024/2024-04-22/07A 500 E TO BLVD SUP 23-70011 Attach 7 Traffic Study/pz (FILE ID: SUP-2023-70011) Arborist Report
500 Thousand Oaks
Boulevard Project, City of
Thousand Oaks, California
JANUARY 2024
Prepared for:

CHERRY TREE CAPITAL PARTNERS
130 Newport Center Dr., Suite 210
Newport Beach, California 92660
Contact: Tim Stanley
Prepared by:
38 North Marengo Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101
Contact: Chris Kallstrand
ISA Certified Arborist
ATTACHMENT #8
to PC Staff Report of
04/22/2024
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

15265 i JANUARY 2024
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Assignment ............................................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 3

1.4 Setting ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.4.1 Location ..................................................................................................................................... 4

1.4.2 General Physical Characteristics ............................................................................................. 4 2 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Field Tree Inventory and Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 6

2.1.1 Tree Inventory ........................................................................................................................... 6

2.1.2 Tree Risk and Structural Analysis ............................................................................................ 7

2.2 Tree Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 11

2.3 Scope of Work Limitations .................................................................................................................. 12 3 Findings/Results ............................................................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Inventory Summary ............................................................................................................................. 13

3.2 Tree Risk and Structural Analysis ....................................................................................................... 14

3.2.1 Results – Level 2 Basic Tree Risk Assessment Summary .................................................. 14

3.2.2 Results – Level 3 Advanced Assessment Summary ............................................................ 16

3.3 Project-Related Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 17

3.4 Tree Relocation .................................................................................................................................... 19 4 Mitigation and Management Recommendations ........................................................................................... 21

4.1 Mitigation Recommendations............................................................................................................. 21

4.2 Tree Permits ......................................................................................................................................... 22 5 Disclosure .......................................................................................................................................................... 23 6 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 25 TABLES
Table 1. Species Summary............................................................................................................................................. 13 Table 2. Summary of Protected Tree Impact Determinations ..................................................................................... 18 Table 3. Mitigation Recommendations for Proposed Tree Removals ......................................................................... 21

500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 ii JANUARY 2024

500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 iii JANUARY 2024

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1. Tree Risk Matrix................................................................................................................................................. 8 Exhibit 2. Calculating a Tree’s Geometry ......................................................................................................................... 9 Exhibit 3. Triangulation Method ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Exhibit 4. Graphic Representation of Sonic Measurement Method ............................................................................ 10 Exhibit 5. Graphic Representation of Sonic Tomogram Reading (not subject tree) ................................................... 10

FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Map ....................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 2 Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................................................... 29

APPENDICES
A Tree Location Exhibit
B Tree Impact Exhibit
C Tree Information Matrix
D Individual Sonic Tomograms
E Tree Protection Measures

15265 1 JANUARY 2024
1 Introduction
This report summarizes Dudek’s evaluation and analysis of tree resources within the tree survey area at the 500 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard Project (project) site (based on the site plan dated March 1, 2023), located at 500 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard in the City of Thousand Oaks (City), California. The survey area, as discussed in this report, is defined as the project site plan limits plus a 50-foot buffer. The project site is located at 500 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard, south of Thousand Oaks Boulevard, west of Long Court, north of U.S. Route 101, and east of Lombard Street in the City of Thousand Oaks, California. The initial field inventory and assessments of the survey area’s trees were conducted on April 7, 2023 and August 28, 2023. The focus of Dudek’s field evaluations was to identify and inventory all on-site trees that are subject to regulation by the City Municipal Code that could be affected by the proposed development per the site plan and evaluate the structural integrity of two large oak trees using sonic tomography. This report includes a discussion of tree inventory, evaluation, and analysis methods ; a summary of findings ; identification of anticipated impacts ; and tree protection and tree impact mitigation recommendations consistent with the City Municipal Code and the tree removal permit process specified therein.

The City requires a permit for removal, pruning, or encroachment into the protected zone of any oak tree or landmark tree, which are defined as:
▪ Oak Tree: any oak tree of the genus Quercus including, but not limited to, valley oak (Quercus lobata), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), regardless of size (Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 42, Oak Tree Preservation and Protection).
▪ Landmark Tree: specimens of the following species that have reached the designated maturity: Platanus racemosa (California sycamore) that exceed 12 inches in diameter when measured at a point 4 .5 feet above the natural grade at the base of the tree, Umbellularia californica (California bay laurel) that exceed 8 inches in diameter when measured at a point 4 .5 feet above the natural grade at the base of the tree , Juglans californica (California black walnut) that exceed 8 inches in diameter when measured at a point

4.5 feet above the natural grade at the base of the tree , and Heteromeles arbutifolia (Toyon) that exceed 8 inches in diameter when measured a t a point 4.5 feet above the natural grade at the base of the tree.

Trees with multiple trunks shall be deemed to have reached maturity if the sum of the diameters of the multiple trunks exceeds the required diameter plus 2 inches of a single trunked tree. Landmark trees shall also include all designated historic trees (Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 43, Landmark Tree Preservation and Protection).
▪ Protected Zone: a specifically defined area totally encompassing an oak, landmark, or historic tree within which work activities are strictly controlled. When depicted on a map, the outermost edge of the protected zone will appear as an irregular shaped circle that follows the contour of the dripline of the tree. Using the dripline as a point of reference, the protected zone shall commence at a point 5 feet outside of the dripline and extend inward to the trunk of the tree. In no case shall the protected zone be less than 15 feet fr om the trunk of a landmark tree (Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapters 42 and 43).

The analysis of potential tree impacts in this report considers the requirements outlined in the appropriate sections of the City’s Municipal Code. The proposed project would remove protected oak and landmark trees and would result in encroachment into the protected zone of oak and landmark trees due to site development. Section 4 of this report recommends mitigation measures for anticipated tree removal and to mitigate impacts from construction 500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 2 JANUARY 2024

encroachment into the protected zone of regulated trees that would result from the proposed project. The provided measures are consistent with the provisions of the City Municipal Code.

In addition to the evaluation and analysis of tree resources within the tree survey area at the 500 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard Project, as they relate to the proposed project, the following report includes a risk assessment of two large oak trees found on the property (Tree nos. 1 and 2.). Although, this information is not a requirement of the municipal code, the City requested that these two trees be evaluated for risk and decay based on the recent failure of adjacent trees.

1.1 Summary
The field survey recorded 60 trees within the survey area, 34 of which are oak trees subject to regulation under the City’s Municipal Code. The inventoried tree locations are depicted in Appendix A, Tree Locations. The proposed project’s tree impacts are depicted in Appendix B, Tree Impacts. Construction of the proposed project is expected to require removal of up to 33 trees, including 22 regulated oak trees. Furthermore, the protected zone of up to 15 trees, including 9 regulated trees, will be encroached upon because of proposed grading and building construction (City-issued permits are required for pruning branches in conjunction with construction activities and will be required prior to pruning of any regulated trees).

The Thousand Oaks Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines call for one 15-gallon oak tree to be planted or donated for each dead or hazardous oak tree removed. For removal of healthy oak trees associated with commercial, industrial, and new residential development projects, the guidelines call for planting or donation of two 24-inch box trees and one 36-inch or 60-inch box tree. In the case of removal of oak trees larger than 48 inches in diameter, the applicant is required to obtain the largest nursery grown oak tree available or provide two 60-inch box trees. The City Municipal Code does not identify specific replacement requirements to mitigate for the removal of landmark trees, so this report applies the replacement requirements for the removal of oak trees to landmark tree removal. The tree replacement recommendations contained herein are based on the standards set forth in the City’s Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines. Finally, Section 4 of this report provides construction-related tree protection recommendations and recommendations for long-term maintenance and care for regulated trees that will be retained on the project site.

Dudek recommends planting 64 oak trees on site to mitigate for the anticipated removal of 22 oak trees. Species composition of the planted trees should match the species removed at a ratio of one 36-inch box tree and two 24- inch box trees for each oak tree removed and two 60-inch box trees for each oak tree with a diameter greater than 48 inches removed, consistent with City Municipal Code. Planting should therefore include four 60-inch box trees, twenty 36-inch oak box trees , and forty 24-inch oak box trees. It should be noted that with the exception of two trees (no. 8 and no. 15), located to the east of the proposed project, all of the proposed tree removals are on -site tree removals. Additionally, it should be noted that the project disturbance footprint do es not encroach into the Caltrans right-of-way, and no trees located within the Caltrans right-of-way will be remove or encroached upon by the proposed project. It should be noted, that the in the previous version of the report, two trees (Tree nos. 18 and 20) were noted as being removed and within the Caltrans right-of-way (R.O.W). One of these two trees, tree no. 18, was misidentified as being located within the Caltrans R.O.W, and is not located within the R.O.W. The second tree, tree no. 20, is located within the R.O.W, but it is not impacted by the p roposed project. Lastly, for those trees recommended for removal on the adjacent property the City will require a separate Protected Tree Permit and Report to document the specific work/impacts and the associated regulatory mitigation. 500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 3 JANUARY 2024
The site’s two large valley oak (Tree nos. 1 and 2), which were evaluated for decay and risk, at the request of the City, were found to have an overall risk rating of low. Furthermore, the two valley oak trees were evaluated for the presence of internal decay, damaged wood, and/or cracks. Per section 3.2 of this report, the two trees were found to have very low detectable internal damage ( 2% or less) at the reading locations. Additional details regarding the risk evaluation can be found in section 3.2.

A long-term monitoring and maintenance program is further recommended to mitigate for encroachments into the protected zone of regulated trees that would occur with the proposed project and to maintain the health of the trees retained on site. Further details regarding mitigation for planned tree removal is provided in Section 4.1 of this report.

1.2 Assignment
Dudek’s International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborists performed the following tasks:
▪ Assessed and inventoried all regulated oak and landmark trees with protected zones within the survey area and documented species, general health, general structural condition, size, appearance, and presence of pests ▪ Mapped the location of regulated oak and landmark trees using GPS technology as necessary to develop a tree location exhibit and for planning reference
▪ Performed a Level 3 tree risk analysis, using sonic tomography, of two large oaks on the northern edge of the property
▪ Prepared a tree information matrix that details the attributes of each regulated tree and identifies the species and landmark status
▪ Analyzed tree attribute data and coordinated with the project design team to promote tree retention on site to the maximum extent practicable
▪ Evaluated tree impacts based on the project site plans (dated March 1, 2023) ▪ Prepared this report to document the results of field surveys and impact analyses and provide recommendations for tree protection and impact mitigation measures in accordance with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code and Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines

1.3 Project Description
Located within the Thousand Oaks Boulevard specific plan (SP20), the project proposes a 6.09-acre mixed-use development that would provide 328 multifamily units, retail, live -work areas, and extensive public open spaces throughout the site. The residential units would be distributed along three buildings composed of two to three stories of type V-A wood construction over a two-story type I-A concrete podium. The overall bulk of and massing of the adjacent public streets would create a relatable scale with the neighborhood context. Private open spaces would be provided on each building, in addition to public open spaces with passive and active uses located along Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Lombard Street that would create a vibrant place-making project. 500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 4 JANUARY 2024

1.4 Setting

1.4.1 Location
The project site is in the City of Thousand Oaks, California, and is generally bounded on the north by Thousand Oaks Boulevard, on the east by private development (commercial and residential), on the south by U.S. Route 101, and on the west by Lombard Street (Figure 1, Regional Map). The survey area is within portions of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 5250-012-230, 6690-21-105, 669-201-030, 6690-21-040, and 6690-201-050, which totals 6.09 acres.

1.4.2 General Physical Characteristics
The project site is mostly flat with a slight slope on portions of the project site. The site is primarily open space consisting of a combination of non -native grasslands and herbaceous weeds. The project site is currently undeveloped. The surrounding land use consists of public roads, single -residence dwellings, and commercial land use. The site is located directly south of E Thousand Oaks Boulevard, directly north of U.S. Route 101, east of Lombard Street, and west of Long Court. Inventoried on -site trees consist primarily of oak and ornamental trees. Trees are found around the edges of the project boundaries, with occasional trees located in the eastern half of the site.
500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 5 JANUARY 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

15265 6 JANUARY 2024
2 Methods
The following sections describe the methods used by Dudek’s ISA Certified Arborists to inventory and evaluate trees on the tree survey area.

2.1 Field Tree Inventory and Evaluation
Dudek’s ISA Certified Arborists Aida Castro (No. WE-13966A) and Sarah Tian (No. WE-13677A) conducted the following tree inventories and/or tree evaluations:
▪ April 7, 2023 – tree inventory and evaluation to document tree loca tions and attribute information for all oak trees and landmark trees within the survey area
▪ April 7, 2023 – Level 2 and 3 Risk and Structural Assessment of two large coast live oak trees (Tree Nos1 and 2) located on the northern edge of the property
▪ August 28, 2023 – updated tree crown dimensions

2.1.1 Tree Inventory
The Dudek arborists examined and mapped all oak and landmark trees with protected zones located within 50 feet of areas that would be disturbed by the proposed development. Tree attribute data collected during the field survey included species, trunk diameter, tree height, canopy spread (north, northwest, west, southwest, south, southeast, east, northeast), general health condition, structural condition , and presences of observable pests or other tree maladies. Trunk diameters were measured using a diameter tape that provides adjusted numbers for diameter measurements when wrapping the tape around the circumference of the trunk of a tree. Diameter measurements were collected using standard protocol described by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, published by the ISA , and in accordance with guidance given in the City’s Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines and the City’s Municipal Code.

Trunk diameter measurements were taken at 4.5 feet above the ground along the trunk axis, with a few common exceptions. In cases where the trunk of a tree split into multiple stems at approximately 4.5 feet above the ground, the measurement was made at the location that best represented the trunk’s diameter. Tree height measurements were estimated by the arborist , and tree crown radius measurements were documented by “pacing -off” the measurement based on the arborist’s knowledge of his stride length or visually estimating the canopy width.

Pursuant to the Guide for Plant Appraisal (ISA 2000), tree health and structure were evaluated with respect to five distinct tree components: roots, trunk, scaffold branches, small branches, and foliage. Health and structure were graded as good, good/fair, fair, fair/poor, and poor. Good condition trees exhibit acceptable vigor, healthy foliage, minor if any structural issues, and no apparent maladies. Fair condition trees are typical, with few maladies, moderate structural issues, and may exhibit less vigor in foliage and new growth. Trees assigned a poor condition rating by Dudek’s arborists exhibit significant health or structural problems or damage.

The location of each individual regulated tree was mapped using a Trimble Pathfinder Pro XH GPS receiver. The Pathfinder has a horizontal accuracy of 1-meter (1-sigma) using differential code positioning techniques. Since tree 500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 7 JANUARY 2024

canopies can sometimes cause loss of satellite lock by blocking the line-of-sight to satellites, an electronic compass and reflectorless electronic distance measuring device was also used in mapping tree locations. The electronic distance measuring/compass combination operates in concert with the Pathfinder system to position offsets, and offset information is automatically attached to the GPS position data string. Dudek used the data collected to create a master tree inventory data set, inclusive of all regulated trees within the tree survey area.

Individual oak and landmark tree locations are presented in Appendix A and individual tree attribute data and impact determinations are presented in Appendix B and Appendix C, Tree Information Matrix.

2.1.2 Tree Risk and Structural Analysis
In addition to the tree inventory and evaluations, Dudek’s arborists conducted a L evel 2 and L evel 3 risk and structural evaluation of two valley oak trees. The Level 2 Basic Tree Risk Assessment is a 360° visual assessment that evaluates the tree’s crown, trunk and trunk flare , visible aboveground roots , and site conditions. The assessment involves inspection of the tree’s crown, branches, trunk, and root collar for the presence of structural defects such as included bark, cavities, fungal fruiting bodies, and/or decay. The Level 2 assessment also evaluates the likelihood that an observed defect could fail, the likelihood of the defect impacting a specific target should failure occur, and the subsequent damage that may occur should failure and impact occur. Through this evaluation, the level of risk for a tree and/or a specific tree part is determined using ISA’s Tree Risk Matrix and based on a defined time frame. The defined time frame establishes the period for which risk is being evaluated to determine the likelihood of failure during the given time frame. The defined time frame for this risk assessment is 12 months, with the assumption of normal weather conditions for the region. The Tree Risk Matrix, provided in Exhibit 1, consists of two matrices that are used to estimate the likelihood of a tree impacting a specific target (e.g., automobile, person, house), to determine the level of risk as a combination of the likelihood of the tree or tree part failing and impacting a target, and to determine the severity of the consequences from that failure. Using the Tree Risk Matrix, the qualified arborist can determine if the observed defect and/or tree has a low, moderate, high, or extreme risk of failure.
500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 8 JANUARY 2024

A Level 3 Advanced Assessment is performed in conjunction with, or after, a Level 2 Basic Tree Risk Assessment to provide detailed information about specific tree parts, defects, targets, or site conditions. Specialized equipment, data analysis, and expertise are usually required for advanced assessments. For this assessment, sonic tomography was the specialized method used to perform a Level 3 Advanced Assessment of the lower trunk of two valley oaks. The sonic tomograph provides a detailed analysis of the structural integrity of the lower trunk and is discussed in the following section.

Sonic tomography detects decay, cavities, and fractures in trees by measuring the velocity of sound waves as they pass through wood. Differences in velocity help determine areas of healthy wood and areas of damaged wood, as damaged wood has less elasticity and density than healthy wood. The reduction in elasticity results in the inability of sound waves to take a direct path through the wood, thereby indicating the presence of damaged wood. The speed of sound in wood correlates with wood quality and is, therefore, a measure of the breaking safety of the trunk (i.e., acceptable level of trunk damage/hollowness) and residual wall thickness (i.e., remaining undamaged wood).

To evaluate the presence and level of potential decay, cavities, and/or fractures within trees, a series of evenly spaced measuring points (MPs) are installed. MPs consist of pins that are tapped into the tree with a hammer until they contact the wood and are past the tree’s bark layer. Contact with wood allows for accurate sound transmission. Upon completion of MP placement, the geometry of each tree was recorded using PiCUS calipers and a triangulation method (Exhibits 2 and 3). During the triangulation method, the MP positions are split into triangles, and the lengths of all sides are measured. The resulting measurements provide a detailed image of the tree’s geometry, which is essential for calculating the sonic tomogram of a tree.

Exhibit 1. Tree Risk Matrix

500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 9 JANUARY 2024

Exhibit 2. Calculating a Tree’s Geometry

Exhibit 3. Triangulation Method

500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 10 JANUARY 2024

Once the tree’s geometry has been calculated and recorded, sensors are attached to the MPs and sonic measurements are taken. The sonic measurements are taken by tapping each MP with an electronic hammer that creates sonic waves (Exhibit 4).

These sonic waves reverberate through the tree and the velocity of each wave is recorded at each of the MPs. This process is repeated until all MPs have been tapped and the corresponding velocities are recorded. The sonic tomograph’s main unit (a computer) records and calculates the sonic tomogram when all readings have been taken.

The tomogram then shows the relative and apparent ability of the wood to transmit acoustic waves. This representation displays different colors that represent the various propert ies of the wood (Exhibit 5). The colors displayed and their corresponding properties are as follows:
▪ Dark brown – Areas of healthy wood, where the fastest velocities occur ▪ Green – Varies, but describes the distance between healthy and damaged wood, and can be indicative of early fungus infection
▪ Violets and blues – Damaged wood
Exhibit 4. Graphic Representation of Sonic Measurement Method

Exhibit 5. Graphic Representation of Sonic Tomogram Reading (not subject tree)

500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 11 JANUARY 2024

Following the sonic tomography sampling, data were electronically transferred into the PiCUS 3 software program (custom software created for the analysis and presentation of sonic tomograph data) for detailed analysis. The software calculates 2D tomograms that show the ability of wood to transmit sonic waves, which allows the user to measure residual wall thickness. During the analysis, the extent and level of decay within each tree was calculated and the structural integrity of the tree was analyzed.

Following completion of the damaged/decayed wood analysis, Dudek calculated the overall level of damaged wood at the cross-sectional plane of evaluation using PiCUS Q74 software for the evaluation of sonic tomograms. After completion of the analysis, management recommendations for each tree were made. The management recommendations are based upon the findings of the Level 2 and Level 3 evaluations. The combination of the Level 2 and Level 3 evaluations provides a comprehensive overview of each tree and the associated risk.

The failure risk described in this study is based on failure at the point of inspection and does not include failure risk associated with other tree components, such as root crown, root, and branch failure.

2.2 Tree Impact Analysis
Following data collection, processing, and analysis efforts, an impact determination was made for each tree based on proximity to the proposed disturbance area and building. Impact determinations used in this report include the following: Not Impacted (tree not affected by project) , Removal (tree to be removed) , and Encroachment (project disturbance would occur within the protected zone of the tree). A summary of project -related tree impacts is presented in Section 3.2, and Appendix C provides impact determination status for each tree recorded in the tree survey area.

Following completion of the impact assessment each tree proposed for removal was evaluated for its relocation potential. Specifically, Dudek evaluated each protected tree that is proposed for removal by the project for its relocation potential. The relocation potential evaluations included external observations of the general health and structure of the trees (new growth, vigor, and trunk/branching structure), overall tree size, absence or presence of trunk wounds or decay, and absence or presence of pests/diseases or other species-specific pathogens.

Furthermore, trees considered as relocation candidates must meet at least minimal requirements that will increase their survival following the boxing, storage, and replanting process. Minimal requirements include suitable size (smaller trees are more succe ssfully transplanted) since larger trees are more difficult to relocate due to their difficulty compensating and adapting to the loss of significant root volume, and requirements for cabling to minimize the likelihood of failure. Trees with a trunk diameter less than about 10 inches perform better following transplant, and the smaller the tree, typically the higher relocation success and feasibility. An additional important consideration for relocation candidate trees is their health and structural condition. Trees must be in “good” health and structural condition (unless the species is unique or especially valuable, where a “fair” condition tree may be considered a candidate) and include an accessible location, no observable soil impediments (rockbound root s, utilities), and no observable chronic pest infestations or disease infections. 500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 12 JANUARY 2024

2.3 Scope of Work Limitations
This report presents tree information as observed in the field. No root crown excavations or investigations, internal probing, or aerial canopy inspections were performed during the tree assessments. Therefore, the presence or absence of internal decay or other hidden or inaccessible inferiorities in individual trees, other than those evaluated with sonic tomography, could not be confirmed.

15265 13 JANUARY 2024

3 Findings/Results

3.1 Inventory Summary
Dudek’s arborists recorded 53 trees on and immediately adjacent to the project site. Of these 53 trees, 34 are protected oak trees. Table 1 provides a summary of the species and regulatory status of the trees mapped within the tree survey area.

Table 1. Species Summary
Scientific Name Common Name Tree Count
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak 24
Quercus lobata Valley oak 8
Quercus ilex Holly oak 2
Total Protected Oak Trees 34
Pinus canariensis Canary island pine 6
Pinus halepensis Aleppo pine 8
Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm 2
Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus 3
Total All Trees 53

As presented in Appendix C, of the 53 total trees, 13 (24.53%) of the trees exhibit above average (Rating B) health, 38 (71.70%) trees exhibit average (Rating C) health, 1 (1.89%) tree shows signs of poor (Rating D) health, and 1 (1.89%) tree is dead (Rating E). A total of 7 (13.21%) trees have above average (Rating B) structure, 40 (75.47%) trees exhibit average (Rating C) structure, 5 (9.43%) trees have poor (Rating D) structure, and 1 (1.89%) tree is dead (Rating E).

Of the 34 protected oak trees, 7 (20.59%) of the trees exhibit above average (Rating B) health, 26 (76.47%) trees exhibit average (Rating C) health, and 1 (2.94%) tree shows signs of poor health. A total of 31 (91.18%) trees exhibit average structure, and 3 (8.82%) trees have poor structure.

Trees in the survey area vary in size and stature according to species. Aggregate trunk diameters of the total 53 trees within the survey area range from 3 inches for several small coast live oaks to 76 inches for a four-stemmed eucalyptus (Tree No. 49). The largest single-stem diameter was 54 inches on a valley oak (Tree No. 1). Tree heights vary from 4 feet to 60 feet. Tree canopy extents range from 5 feet to 60 feet at their widest location. Individual attributes of each tree are presented in Appendix C.

Of the 34 protected oaks, aggregate diameters of the trees within the survey area range from 3 inches for several small coast live oaks to 55 inches for a coast live oak (Tree No. 14) Tree heights vary from 4 feet to 50 feet. Tree canopy extents range from 3 feet to 50 feet at their widest location. 500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 14 JANUARY 2024

3.2 Tree Risk and Structural Analysis
The following subsections detail the results from the Level 2 Basic Tree Risk Assessments and Level 3 Advanced Assessments.

3.2.1 Results – Level 2 Basic Tree Risk Assessment Summary The Level 2 Basic Tree Risk Assessments evaluated site history, tree health and species profiles, load factors, and tree defects and conditions affecting the likelihood of failure in the crown and branches, trunk, and roots/root collar for two trees. The following subsections provide a summary of those findings.

Targets
Targets represent people and property that may be impacted should failure of the tree or tree part occur. Targets were first classified by their distance from a tree. Anything further from the tree than 1.5 times the height of the tree is not considered a target, as impact would not occur in the event of whole tree failure. For the two trees, the main targets identified were light poles, moving vehicles, pedestrians, and benches. The distance of targets from trees varied from being within the drip line to within 1.5 times tree height. Occupancy rate is the other factor used to assess targets, or how often a target is within the fall distance from the tree. For this site, frequency was identified as the following for each target:
▪ Rare: Moving vehicles, pedestrians– This reflects that while cars travel on a road adjacent to the trees and people walk on the sidewalk next to the trees, the actual time spent within the fall distance of an individual tree is brief.
▪ Constant: Benches, light poles– These structures are fixed and do not move. As such, they are constantly within the fall distance of an assessed tree.

Growing Environment
The two trees are mature and located on flat terrain directly adjacent to Thousand Oaks Boulevard. The trees are in an unmaintained undeveloped lot. Surrounding land uses include and may include, following development, roads, residential homes, and commercial development. In general, the landscaping currently consists of grasslands, weeds, and generally unmaintained trees. There is no apparent irrigation throughout the site.

Site history was evaluated and includes factors such as previous land uses, grade changes, and potentially cut/damaged roots from construction related activities, landscaping, irrigation installation, or sidewalk and street repairs. The two trees are in an unmaintained/undeveloped lot, and as such, at the time of the evaluation, had not been subject to grade changes and/or development.

In general, the prevailing wind direction in coastal Southern California is from the west/northwest, with common occurrences of high wind events from Santa Ana wind conditions and heavy winter rainstorms. Winter storm tracks can commonly produce strong winds from the easterly/southeasterly direction. 500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 15 JANUARY 2024
Load Factors
Load factors evaluate a tree’s level of exposure to wind and the ability of the tree to disperse the force of the wind throughout the crown. Trees with a dense crown have more canopy area to buffer the impact of wind, and therefore have a lower overall loa d placed on limbs and branches. A lower load factor reduces the potential for limbs and branches to break during a wind event. The trees’ crowns have a density described as average. Foliage could not be properly examined as the trees are deciduous and had not grown mature leaves at the time of inspection.

The wind exposure for the two trees is high, as neither tree grows near any other tree or structure to disrupt wind flow.

Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure The assessment of tree defects and conditions affecting the likelihood of failure represents the arborist’s visual assessment of the trees’ crown and branches, trunk, and roots and root collar. Each tree part was assessed on multiple factors that reflect p oor structural conditions, dead wood, pests, diseases, previous maintenance work, and other factors that may result in a defect of the tree part. For each tree, the arborist identified the defect of main concern, rated the likelihood that failure would occ ur within the given 12 -month time frame, and rated the total load (mass) of the defect. The following section provides a review of the observed defects and conditions affecting the likelihood of failure for the trees’ crown and branches, trunk, and root and root collar.

Crown and Branches
The tree crowns and branches were assessed on conditions such as crown balance, live crown ratio, and other factors that reflect weak attachments like co-dominant stems, included bark, and response growth from previous pruning. The tree crowns both reach approximately 50 feet in height and 50 feet across at their widest points. The trees exhibit ed weak attachment points such as co -dominant branches and dead branches/twigs. Weak attachment points and poor branch architecture can lead to crown/branch failure. Conversely, stronger attachments consist of accommodating attachment angles with no included bark and sound branch architecture.

Below are the most common tree crown and branch conditions observed in the trees:
▪ Weak Attachments: Both trees were observed to have co-dominant branch unions. Additionally, both trees were observed to have dead branches/twigs in the canopies. ▪ Main Concern: The main concern for Tree No. 2 is the failure of a large, overextended branch located opposite of the targets. The main concern for Tree No. 1 is limb failure. ▪ Likelihood of Failure: The main concerns for Tree No. 2 is classified as possible, whereas the main concern for Tree No. 1 is classified as probable.

The crown and branch evaluations were limited at times by interior foliage, branches, and/or obstructions that limited viewing. Aerial crown evaluations of the trees were beyond the scope of this assessment.

Trunk
The trunk of each tree was assessed for defects that could lead to failure, including the presence of included bark, cankers/galls/burls, noticeable lean, and low live crown ratio . The trunk s of Trees No. 2 and 1 were 43 and 500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 16 JANUARY 2024
54 inches at diameter at standard height , respectively. Below are the most common tree trunk conditions and defects observed in the trees:
▪ Included bark: Neither tree was observed to have included bark at the trunk. ▪ Cankers/galls/burls: Neither tree was observed to have cankers/galls/burls at the trunk. ▪ Lean: Tree No. 2 had a 0% lean whereas Tree No. 1 had a 15% lean. Leaning trees can be less stable under stress. ▪ Live Crown Ratio: Tree No. 2 had a live crown ratio of 75% whereas Tree No. 1 had a live crown ratio of 60%. Live crown ratio indicates the percentage of the total tree height that supports live foliage, and thus indicates health through the tree’s ability to photosynthesize and dampen wind stress. A live crown ratio of at least 60% is preferred for urban trees.
▪ Main Concern: Tree No. 2 does not have a main concern regarding the trunk. The main concern of Tree No. 1 is a slight lean at the trunk. The likelihood of trunk failure of both trees is classified as improbable.

Roots and Root Collar
The root collars of the trees were not buried at the time of the evaluations. Root crown evaluations of the trees were limited to the visible portion of the crown. The following are the most common tree root and root collar conditions and defects observed in the trees:
▪ Conks: Neither tree was observed to have conks at the roots. ▪ Main Concern: Neither tree has a main concern.
▪ Likelihood of Failure: As neither tree has a main concern, likelihood of root failure is not applicable.

3.2.2 Results – Level 3 Advanced Assessment Summary
The following describes the findings of the Level 3 Advanced Assessment.

Sonic Tomography
Two valley oak trees were evaluated for the presence of internal decay, damaged wood, and/or cracks. Dudek found that the two trees had very low detectable internal damage ( 2% or less) at the reading locations. Appendix D, Individual Sonic Tomograms, presents the individual sonic tomography evaluations.

Risk Categorization
To evaluate potential risk, a Dudek Qualified Tree Risk Assessor evaluated the trees using the ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form. As observed at the time of the tree inspection, potential targets should tree failure (whole tree, branch, trunk, or root) o ccur included, and may include in the post development landscape, light poles, moving vehicles, pedestrians, and benches. Potential targets ranged from within the trees’ canopies to within 1.5 times the height of the trees. Any specific target may or may n ot be associated with all the trees on site and may only be associated with one individual tree. The frequency of the targets ranges from constant (i.e., light poles, benches) to rare (i.e., moving cars, pedestrians).
500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 17 JANUARY 2024

Risk rating is a factor of the potential for tree or tree part failure, the likelihood of impact with a target, and the consequences of failure. The high-risk rating is related to a probable likelihood that any specific part would fail, a high likelihood that a target would be present during the potential failure, and a severe level of consequence should failure and impact occur. Based on the fin dings of the Level 2 assessments, both trees were found to have a low overall risk rating.

3.3 Project-Related Impacts
There is wide variation in tolerance to construction impacts among tree species and the response of an individual tree to impacts also varies with age and condition. Impacts assessed for this project include those trees with protected zones on and immediately adjacent to the proposed improvements and identified disturbance areas, as defined in the project site plan (dated March 1, 2023). The impact discussion in this section identifies all impacts anticipated to result to regulated trees based on an evaluation of tree locations compared with the project site plan. Much of the site will need to be graded to accommodate the construction of buildings, parking lots, and the placement of necessary infrastructure (utilities, access roads, fire lanes, etc.). Following review of the impact analysis, the project applicant and their team reviewed the existing site plans for opportunities to modify the plans to accommodate the existing trees. However, based on the location of the trees in the landscape, and requirements for project related infrastructure and utilities modifications to the site plan were unable to be made. Namely, compliance with this development standard would reduce the density of the Project, "physically precluding" it from being built at its proposed and permitted density.

It should be note that the project applicant has significantly modified the original site plans to allow for the preservation and encroachment of the two largest and most significant heritage tree oak trees (Tree no. 1 and 2) on the project site. Specifically, the project was designed to preserve and protect these two large trees and incorporate them into the landscape. Trees identified for retention and removal are graphically presented in the Tree Impact Exhibit included in Appendix B.

Based on grading and development plans for the proposed project and consultation with the project engineer , of the 53 total trees, it is estimated that 33 (62.26%) trees will be removed. Project disturbance is expected to encroach on the protected zone of 15 (28.30%) trees. The percentage of encroachment into the TPZ, as shown in Appendix C, ranges from 3% to 43%. The individual crown encroachments are shown in Appendix B and individual encroachment percentages are shown in Appendix C. The project site plan preserves 5 (9.43%) trees in place with no encroachment.

Of the 34 protected oaks, it is estimated that 22 (64.70%) trees will be removed. Project disturbance is expected to encroach on the protected zone of nine (26.47%) oak trees. The project site plan preserves three (8.82%) oak trees in place with no encroachment.

Table 2 summarizes impact determinations for oak trees and landmark trees within the survey area that are subject to regulation under the City Municipal Code (Chapters 14 and 24).

500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 18 JANUARY 2024

Table 2. Summary of Protected Tree Impact Determinations Species
Impact Determination
Total Removal Encroachment No Impact
Coast live oak 17 6 1 24
Valley oak 5 2 1 8
Holly oak 0 1 1 2
Total Protected Oak Trees 22 9 3 34
Canary island pine 0 6 0 6
Aleppo pine 7 0 1 8
Mexican fan palm 1 0 1 2
Eucalyptus 3 0 0 3
Total All Trees 33 15 5 53

500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 19 JANUARY 2024

3.4 Tree Relocation
During the relocation evaluation process, Dudek utilized a strict set of physical attribute criteria that a tree must exhibit to be considered a candidate for the very stressful relocation process. The success rates for transplanting large oak and landmark trees are relatively low (personal observation and Dagit and Downer 1997). Transplanting large oak trees places a great deal of stress on the trees due to difficulties that mature oaks have adapting to a new site after losing a minimum of 75% of their root mass. These additional stresses make oak trees more vulnerable to pests and diseases. Although they may live for a long time, large, transplanted oaks typically do not reach equilibrium health and vitality needed for long -term survival. The trees will exist in a declining spiral. A great deal of care, time, and attention is required during boxing, moving, storing, and transplanting to increase survival probability. Just as important, they require diligent and regular monitoring and maintenance for the rest of their lives.

In summary, younger, and smaller trees typically have a higher success rate post -transplant. These trees are still vigorously growing and are more adaptable to root disturbance and the transplant process. Trees with a trunk diameter less than approximately 15 inches typically perform better following transplant, and the smaller the tree, typically the higher relocation success and feasibility. Trees exhibiting maladies including declining health, internal decay, cavities, uncorrectable branch architecture issues, co-dominant stems with included bark, and pest and/or disease infections are not considered for relocation. Trees must be in “good” health and structural condition (unless the species is unique or especially valuable where a “fair” condition tree may be considered a candidate) and include an accessible location, no observable soil impediments (rockbound roots, utilities), no overhead utilities, and no observable chronic pest infestations and/or disease infections. A full green canopy may give the appearance that a tree is healthy; however, with the potential presence of internal decay and the stress resulting from the relocation process, the trees may decline, resulting in tree loss and increased hazards, especially in an urbanized setting.

Some trees that are structurally sound and healthy, meeting all the criteria set for these attributes, may be rejected as relocation candidates based on soil issues. For instance, trees that are growing in soil that is highly sandy likely would be rejected due to the difficulty in boxing trees without “losing” the root ball as commonly happens in sandy soil. Similarly, trees in rocky soils may be rejected if “rock-bound” roots are suspected as these trees cannot be boxed cost-effectively. In these cases, the trees would be recommended for preservation in place, if possible.

Based on the above noted factors, none of the impacted (removal trees) tree are considered candidates for relocation. 500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 20 JANUARY 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

15265 21 JANUARY 2024
4 Mitigation and
Management Recommendations

4.1 Mitigation Recommendations
Removals
The City of Thousand Oaks Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines mitigation requirements for tree removals associated with development projects are summarized as follows:
▪ one 15-gallon oak tree to be planted or donated for each dead or hazardous oak tree removed ▪ two 24-inch box trees, and one 36 -inch or 60 -inch box tree must be planted for each healthy oak tree removed for commercial, industrial, and new residential development projects ▪ in the case of removal of oak trees larger than 48 inches in diameter, the applicant is required to obtain the largest nursery grown oak tree available or plant two 60-inch box trees ▪ The City Code does not identify specific replacement requirements to mitigate for removal of landmark trees.

Therefore, this report utilizes the City’s oak replacement requirements as the recommended mitigation ratio for landmark tree removal.

The proposed project would require removal of 0 dead oak trees and 22 healthy oak trees, including two multi-stem coast live oaks with a diameter at breast height of 53 inches and 55 inches. Consistent with the City’s requirements, Dudek recommends the mitigation shown in Table 3 for removals associated with the project.

Table 3. Mitigation Recommendations for Proposed Tree Removals Species
Expected
Removal
Recommended Mitigation Plantings
60-inch box trees 36-inch box trees 24-inch box trees Dead Regulated Oaks 0 0 0 0
Healthy Regulated
Oaks Less than 48-
inch Diameter
20 0 20 40
Healthy Regulated
Oaks Larger than 48-
inch Diameter
2 4 0 0
Total 22 4 20 40

Encroachment into Protected Zone and Retained Trees
A long-term maintenance program is required by City Municipal Code to mitigate for encroachments into the protected zone of regulated trees that would occur with the proposed project and to maintain the health of the trees retained on the project site. In total, the proposed project will encroach into the protected zone of 15 trees including nine protected oak trees.

Except for tree nos. 1 and 2 all the encroachments are associated with trees on the neighboring properties to the east and 500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 22 JANUARY 2024

west of the proposed project site. Based on the provided site plans, and mapped locations of the trees, no protected trees within the Caltrans right-of-way to the south will be encroached upon by the proposed project. It should be note that prior to project authorization and commencement, authorization will be required from the adjacent property owners for encroachment into the TPZ of trees located on their property and a separate permit application will be required. Appendix E provides tree protection recommendations to mitigate impacts from construction encroachment into the protected zone of regulated trees that would result from the proposed project. The measures included in Appendix E are consistent with the provisions of the City Municipal Code and would help minimize impacts to preserved and encroached trees. Appendix E includes measures to implement prior to, during, and following construction. This includes measures such as exclusion fencing and worker training to avoid direct impacts to trees, and measures such as irrigation and monthly inspections by an arborist to promote the long-term health of retained trees. Dudek also recommends arborist monitoring during construction when encroachments into tree protection zones occur to minimize root disturbance and determine the best course of actions for root pruning, supplemental irrigation, branch trimming, or other measures that would minimize the impacts from ground disturbing or other potential impactful activities.

4.2 Tree Permits
The project applicant will need to submit a Tree Permit Application and fee to the City of Thousand Oaks Community Development Department. A copy of this report and the final project site plan should accompany the application. A Tree Permit is required for removal, pruning, or soil disturbance within the protected zone of a regulated tree. The Community Development Director may approve, deny, or conditionally approve a request for removal of any number of planted nursery grown oak trees in parking areas and the removal of three or fewer oak or five or fewer landmark trees on a single parcel without hearing or notice. Any request for removal of four or more oak trees or six or more landmark trees will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing in conjunction with the Commission's consideration of other entitlement applications for the proposed project. The Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the permit. The decision of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council. In acting on the permit application the Planning Commission will generally consider the applicant's ability to make the findings required by the Ordinance and the Tree Preservation Guidelines (see Sections 5-14.01 and 5-

24.01 of the City Municipal Code and Section IV of the Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines).

15265 23 JANUARY 2024
5 Disclosure
This arborist report provides conclusions and recommendations based only on a visual examination of the trees within the tree survey area by International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborists and reasonable reliance on the completeness and accuracy of the information provided to the arborist. The examination did not include subterranean or internal examination of the trees.

Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near them. Although trees provide many benefits to those who live near them, they also include inherent risks from breakage or failure that can be minimized but not eliminated.

Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms subject to attack by disease, insects, fungi, weather, and other forces of nature, and conditions that lead to failure are often hidden within trees and belowground. There are some inherent risks with trees that cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, even by a skilled and experienced arborist. Arborists cannot predict acts of nature, including, without limitation, storms of sufficient strength, which can cause an apparently healthy tree to fail. Additionally, arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances or for any specific period of time. A tree’s condition could change over a short or long period of time due to climatic, cultural, or environmental conditions. Further, there is no guarantee or certainty that recommendations or efforts to correct unsafe conditions will prevent future breakage or failure of a tree.

To live or work near trees is to accept some degree of risk. Neither the author of this Arborist report nor Dudek have assumed any responsibility for or will be liable for any claims, losses, or damages for damage to any tree, death or injury to any person, or any loss of or damage to any personal or real property.

500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 24 JANUARY 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

15265 25 JANUARY 2024
6 References
ISA (International Society of Arboriculture). 2000. Guide for Plant Appraisal (9th Edition).

500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 26 JANUARY 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 4/20/2023 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1526500\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Arborist\Figure 1 Regional Map.mxd Regional Map
Arborist Report for 500 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Project SOURCE: ESRI FIGURE 1
Agoura
Hills
Beverly Hills
Burbank
Calabasas
Camarillo
Carpinteria
Culver City
Fillmore
Glendale
Goleta
Hidden Hills
Lancaster
Los Angeles
Malibu
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Palmdale
Port Hueneme
San Fernando
Santa
Barbara
Santa
Clarita
Santa
Monica
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Ventura
West
Hollywood
Westlake
Village
K e r n C o u n t y
L o s A n g e l e s
C o u n t y
S a n t a
B a r b a r a
C o u n t y
101
101
154
33 217
170
118
134
118
138
138
144
23 232
187
33 126
126225
166
23 2
34 27
192
1 14
150
33 405
10 5
5 5
5 5
210

V E N T U R A

C O U N T Y
Project Site
0 49,00024,500
Feet
500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 28 JANUARY 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 4/20/2023 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1526500\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Arborist\Figure 2 Vicinity.mxd Vicinity Map
Arborist Report for 500 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Project SOURCE: Bing Maps 2022
0 200100
Feet
Project Site
FIGURE 2
500 THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA /

ARBORIST REPORT

15265 30 JANUARY 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Appendix A
Tree Location Exhibit
Date: 1/25/2024 - Last saved by: ckallstrand - Path: Z:\Projects\j1526500\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Arborist\Appendix A Tree Locations.mxd Tree Locations
Arborist Report for 500 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Project SOURCE: AERIAL-BING MAPPING SERVICE
0 7035
Feetn

APPENDIX A
Project Boundary
Species
Eucalyptus spp., Eucalyptus
Pinus canariensis, Canary Island Pine
Pinus halepensis, Aleppo Pine
Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak
Quercus ilex, Holly Oak
Quercus lobata, Valley Oak
Washingtonia robusta, Mexican Fan Palm

Appendix B
Tree Impact Exhibit
Date: 1/25/2024 - Last saved by: ckallstrand - Path: Z:\Projects\j1526500\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Arborist\Appendix B Tree Impacts_Encroached Trees.mxd Tree Impacts- Encroachment Trees
Arborist Report for 500 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Project SOURCE: AERIAL-BING MAPPING SERVICE
0 6030
Feetn

APPENDIX B
Utilities
Project Boundary
Encroached Tree Crowns
Preserve and Removal Tree Crowns
Tree Canopy Inside Development Area
Disposition
Encroached
Preserve
Removal

Appendix C
Tree Information Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N NE E SE S SW W NW Total
Area
Encroached
Upon
% of
Encroachment
1 Quercus lobata Valley Oak 1 54 54 - - - - - - - - 40 40 25 40 35 30 23 40 50 50 Fair Fair Encroached 5,161.61 146.5 2.84% 6298800.927180 1888465.287120 2 Quercus lobata Valley Oak 1 42 42 - - - - - - - - 22 27 20 35 35 28 17 35 50 50 Fair Fair Encroached 3754.54 561.8 14.96% 6298977.857340 1888446.550390 3 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 2 7 5 2 - - - - - - - 10 12 6 5 6 4 3 6 20 10 Good Fair Removal - - - 6299144.625680 1888473.558170 4 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 2 5 3 2 - - - - - - - 3 4 7 6 7 7 6 4 10 8 Good Fair Removal - - - 6299267.674310 1888328.225070 5 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 5 5 - - - - - - - - 10 10 6 4 4 4 6 8 20 10 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6299164.411740 1888282.063900 6 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 5 14 4 3 3 2 2 - - - - 8 8 4 5 4 5 6 7 10 10 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6299159.942760 1888277.328250 7 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 3 9 5 2 2 - - - - - - 8 8 10 8 10 8 8 10 15 10 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6299142.391810 1888276.888570 8 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 6 6 - - - - - - - - 5 5 4 5 8 5 10 10 10 15 Good Fair Removal - - - No tag. Neighbors property 6299261.742080 1888202.943320 9 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 5 10 2 2 2 2 2 - - - - 5 5 7 8 5 5 5 5 10 10 Fair Fair Encroached 353.32 100.47 28% No tag. Neighbors property 6299269.813470 1888175.512320 10 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 3 3 1 1 1 - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 7 4 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6299254.879020 1888177.178010 13 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 11 11 - - - - - - - - 10 0 0 0 8 10 15 20 25 15 Fair Fair Removal - - - Growing between fence on property line. 6299257.234280 1888145.169750
14 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 10 55 7 7 5 6 4 4 4 3 3 12 8 5 8 10 15 18 18 15 15 Fair Fair Removal - - - Additional Stems - 4, 3,3,2 6299234.501350 1888150.640320 15 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 11 11 - - - - - - - - 10 0 0 0 10 15 15 15 25 15 Fair Fair Removal - - - No tag. Neighbors property 6299262.333200 1888137.136720 16 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 22 22 - - - - - - - - 15 10 10 10 15 15 15 20 35 25 Fair Fair Encroached 1115.50 439.94 39% No tag. Neighbors property 6299271.757890 1888121.559320 17 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 3 3 1 1 1 - - - - - - 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 6 5 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6299240.130400 1888106.254300 18 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 3 7 3 2 2 - - - - - - 7 8 8 8 10 9 7 7 10 8 Fair Fair Removal - - - No tag. Freeway ROW 6299218.373570 1887957.074820 20 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 6 6 - - - - - - - - 8 6 6 8 5 10 15 10 20 10 Fair Fair Preserve - - - No tag. Freeway ROW 6298883.500730 1887992.989970 21 Quercus lobata Valley Oak 1 15 15 - - - - - - - - 10 10 25 20 20 20 20 10 45 25 Fair Fair Preserve - - - 6298845.678020 1888013.821550 22 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 3 9 6 1 2 - - - - - - 12 13 10 7 7 7 8 10 15 15 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6298705.264080 1888059.199170 23 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 3 3 - - - - - - - - 8 4 5 7 7 4 4 6 15 10 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6298702.553980 1888059.509580 24 Washingtonia
robusta
Mexican Fan
Palm 1 12 12 - - - - - - - - 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 15 Fair Good Preserve - - - No tag. Neighbors property 6298611.275300 1888073.085280 25 Pinus canariensis Canary Island
Pine 1 16 16 - - - - - - - - 2 10 12 6 16 6 3 2 60 15 Fair Fair Encroached 575.89 105.77 18% No tag. Neighbors property 6298618.964490 1888091.796130 26 Pinus canariensis Canary Island
Pine 1 20 20 - - - - - - - - 5 12 14 14 15 2 2 3 60 15 Fair Fair Encroached 650.39 122.55 19% No tag. Neighbors property 6298619.018440 1888096.995110 27 Pinus canariensis Canary Island
Pine 1 22 22 - - - - - - - - 9 12 5 3 12 18 18 11 60 15 Fair Fair Encroached 871.32 64.23 7% No tag. Neighbors property 6298616.315370 1888098.652380 28 Pinus canariensis Canary Island
Pine 1 22 22 - - - - - - - - 8 9 14 13 13 10 18 9 60 15 Fair Fair Encroached 870.71 23.44 3% No tag. Neighbors property 6298601.774480 1888127.775660 29 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 2 12 6 6 - - - - - - - 10 14 11 11 6 3 3 6 30 20 Fair Fair Encroached 563.74 235.61 41% No tag. Neighbors property 6298608.977520 1888124.093150 30 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 3 3 - - - - - - - - 4 6 7 3 3 4 3 4 15 10 Good Fair Encroached 268.76 27.65 10% No tag. Neighbors property 6298607.388480 1888128.827610 31 Quercus ilex Holly Oak 2 8 4 4 - - - - - - - 5 7 9 7 8 5 4 3 30 10 Fair Fair Encroached 384.76 168.26 43% No tag. Neighbors property 6298579.449640 1888171.035080 32 Quercus lobata Valley Oak 2 13 7 6 - - - - - - - 17 10 11 12 3 1 6 11 30 20 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6298582.724450 1888177.047040 33 Pinus canariensis Canary Island
Pine 1 12 12 - - - - - - - - 5 6 11 12 15 10 7 6 40 15 Fair Fair Encroached 636.77 203.97 32% No tag. Neighbors property 6298574.134410 1888178.949460 34 Pinus canariensis Canary Island
Pine 1 12 12 - - - - - - - - 6 8 6 11 10 15 10 7 60 15 Fair Fair Encroached 630.32 176.60 28% No tag. Neighbors property 6298569.977060 1888186.311530 Tree
No. Botanical Name Common Name Stems Combined
D.B.H (in.) Notes X Y
Individual Stem Diameters (in.) Dripline Extent (ft.) Crown Square Footage (Encroached upon trees only)Height
(ft.)
Crown
Width
(ft.)
Health Structure Disposition
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N NE E SE S SW W NW Total
Area
Encroached
Upon
% of
Encroachment
Tree
No. Botanical Name Common Name Stems Combined
D.B.H (in.) Notes X Y
Individual Stem Diameters (in.) Dripline Extent (ft.) Crown Square Footage (Encroached upon trees only)Height
(ft.)
Crown
Width
(ft.)
Health Structure Disposition
35 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 7 7 - - - - - - - - 12 9 10 8 8 8 3 7 30 15 Fair Fair Encroached 569.05 137.31 24% No tag. Neighbors property 6298564.785760 1888195.767290 36 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 6 6 - - - - - - - - 17 16 15 7 5 5 6 14 30 15 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6298590.591180 1888191.941380 37 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 5 5 - - - - - - - - 8 8 4 3 3 3 3 4 15 10 Fair Fair Encroached 454.75 27.08 6% 6298557.885780 1888198.359910 38 Washingtonia
robusta
Mexican Fan
Palm 1 15 15 - - - - - - - - 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 35 10 Dead Dead Removal - - - 6298560.372740 1888200.680620 39 Quercus ilex Holly Oak 1 15 15 - - - - - - - - 9 13 7 9 14 10 11 10 30 15 Good Fair Preserve - - - No tag. Neighbors property 6298542.183760 1888206.332270 40 Quercus lobata Valley Oak 1 4 4 - - - - - - - - 14 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 Poor Fair Removal - - - 6298584.473780 1888184.117010 43 Quercus lobata Valley Oak 1 4 4 - - - - - - - - 12 7 6 4 3 2 4 10 20 8 Good Fair Removal - - - 6298613.539690 1888184.082410 46 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 15 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 8 Fair Poor Removal - - - 6298653.052720 1888131.948020 47 Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus 1 45 45 - - - - - - - - 15 10 8 30 30 25 30 27 50 30 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6299014.781640 1888009.928610 48 Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus 1 25 25 - - - - - - - - 20 17 10 12 30 10 16 10 35 20 Fair Poor Removal - - - 6299044.707420 1888003.509390 49 Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus 4 76 45 13 12 6 - - - - - 28 28 25 35 30 25 25 18 60 40 Fair Poor Removal - - - 6299086.358210 1888023.167130 50 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 12 53 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 3 3 15 15 8 4 10 12 12 15 25 25 Fair Poor Removal - - - 6299019.443200 1888183.947520 51 Quercus lobata Valley Oak 2 9 5 4 - - - - - - - 10 5 1 2 2 8 6 5 20 15 Good Fair Removal - - - 6299016.836910 1888171.333090 52 Quercus lobata Valley Oak 2 8 4 4 - - - - - - - 8 10 10 3 5 7 8 8 8 10 Fair Poor Removal - - - 6299013.153160 1888178.046760 54 Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 1 9 9 - - - - - - - - 8 4 5 8 7 7 8 8 30 10 Good Good Removal - - - 6299251.060740 1888314.244030 55 Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 1 4 4 - - - - - - - - 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 3 20 7 Good Good Removal - - - 6299231.682110 1888329.207040 56 Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 1 4 4 - - - - - - - - 3 4 3 2 3 3 4 4 20 7 Good Good Removal - - - 6299250.591270 1888330.586810 57 Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 1 4 4 - - - - - - - - 2 2 3 6 5 5 2 2 20 7 Good Good Removal - - - 6299256.508050 1888332.632110 58 Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 1 4 4 - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 4 6 3 3 20 7 Good Good Removal - - - 6299257.345910 1888330.259670 59 Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 1 4 4 - - - - - - - - 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 4 20 7 Good Good Removal - - - 6299255.924100 1888327.149160 60 Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 2 12 8 4 - - - - - - - 10 10 10 12 12 12 15 12 35 15 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6299195.181910 1888462.253100 61 Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 2 16 12 4 - - - - - - - 15 15 15 15 15 8 5 5 30 20 Fair Fair Preserve - - - 6299190.759160 1888485.337670

Appendix D
Individual Sonic Tomograms
500 Thousand Oaks
Boulevard
Appendix D – Individual Tomographs
All tomographs were taken April 7, 2023
Tree no. 1; 3 inches above ground level
500 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Individual Tomographs
Tree no. 1; 12 inches above ground level
Tree no. 2; 3 inches above ground level
500 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Individual Tomographs
Tree no. 2; 12 inches above ground level

Appendix E
Tree Protection Measures

APPENDIX E / TREE PROTECTION MEASURES

15265 C-1 APRIL 2023

Tree Protection Measures
The following tree protection measures are provided as general guidelines for tree protection from construction impacts. The measures presented should be monitored by arborists and enforced by contractors and developers for maximum benefit to the trees.

Tree Protection Measures Prior to Construction
Prior to any construction activity (drainage, demolition, material removal or delivery), oak and landmark trees with canopies that fall within 30 feet of construction activity shall be protected by fencing and signage. All contractors shall be made aware of the tree protection measures. A project arborist shall be assigned to monitor tree health and construction activity near retained trees on site. The project arborist shall be an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist.

Fencing. A 6-foot high, chain link fence with tree protection signs shall be erected around all trees (or tree groups) with canopies that fall within 30 feet of construction activity. The protective fence should be installed at a distance from the trunk that is equal to t he dripline radius plus 5 feet (protected tree zone). For any trees that would be encroached upon by construction activities, fencing shall be placed as far away from trunk of the tree as possible while still allowing the required construction activities to proceed. This fencing will delineate the tree protection zone and prevent unwanted activity in and around the trees in order to reduce soil compaction in the root zones of the trees and other damage from heavy equipment. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. In areas where fencing is located on paving or concrete that will not be demolished, then the posts may be supported by an appropriate grade level concrete base. Tree protection signs should be attached to every fourth post. The contractor shall maintain the fence to keep it upright, taut, and aligned at all times. Fencing shall be removed only after all construction activities are complete.

Pre-Construction Meeting. A pre-construction meeting shall be held between all contractors and the arborist. The arborist will instruct the contractors on tree protection practices and answer any questions. All equipment operators and spotters, assistants, or those directing operators from the ground, shall provide written acknowledgement of their receiving tree protection training. This training shall include information on the location and marking of protected trees, the necessity of preventing damage, and the discussion of work practices that will accomplish such.

Protection and Maintenance During Construction
Once construction activities have begun, the following measures shall be adhered to:

Avoidance: Signs, ropes, cables, or any other items shall not be attached to any tree.

Equipment Operation and Storage . Operating heavy machinery around the root zones of trees will increase soil compaction, which decreases soil aeration and subsequently reduces water penetration in the soil. All heavy equipment and vehicles shall stay out of the fenced tree protection zone, unless where specifically approved in writing by the City Arborist and under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist Storage and Disposal. Do not store or discard any supply or material, including paint, lumber, concrete overflow, etc. within the fenced tree protection zone. Remove all foreign debris within the fenced tree protection zone; it is

APPENDIX E / TREE PROTECTION MEASURES

15265 C-2 APRIL 2023

important to leave the duff, mulch, chips, and leaves around the retained trees for water retention and nutrients.

Avoid draining or leakage of equipment fluids near retained trees. Fluids such as: gasoline, diesel, oils, hydraulics, brake and transmission fluids, paint, paint thinners, and glycol (anti -freeze) should be disposed of properly. Keep equipment parked outside of the fenced tree protection zone of retained trees to avoid the possibility of leakage of equipment fluids into the soil. The effect of toxic equipment fluids on the retained trees could lead to decline and death.

Moving Construction Materials . Moving Construction Materials: Care will be taken when moving equipment or supplies near the trees, especially overhead. Avoid damaging the tree(s) when transporting or moving construction materials and working around retained trees (even outside of the fenced tree protection zone). Above ground tree parts that could be damaged (e.g., low limbs, trunks) should be flagged with red ribbon. If contact with the tree crown is unavoidable, prune the conflicting branch(es) using ISA or ANSI A300 standards.

Grade Changes. Grade changes, including adding fill, are not permitted within the tree protection zone, without special written authorization and under supervision by a Certified Arborist. Lowering the grade within this area will necessitate cutting main support and feeder roots, jeopardizing the health and structural integrity of the tree(s).

Adding soil, even temporarily, on top of the existing grade will compact the soil further, and decrease both water and air availability to the trees’ roots.

Root Pruning . Except where specifically approved in writing, all trenching shall be outside of the fenced tree protection zone. Roots primarily extend in a horizontal direction , forming a support base to the tree similar to the base of a wineglass. Where trenching is necessary in areas that contain tree roots, prune the roots using a Dosko root pruner or equivalent. All cuts sh all be clean and sharp, to minimize ripping, tearing, and fracturing the root system. The trench shall be made no deeper than necessary.

Trenching. Unless a Tree Permit has been issued for trenching activity within the fenced tree protection zone, all trenching shall be outside of the fenced tree protection zone. Roots primarily extend in a horizontal direction forming a support base to the tree simil ar to the base of a wineglass. Where trenching is necessary in areas that contain tree roots, prune the roots using a Dosko root pruner or equivalent. All cuts should be clean and sharp, to minimize ripping, tearing, and fracturing of the root system. The trench should be made no deeper than necessary Irrigation. Trees that have been substantially root pruned (30% or more of their root zone) will require irrigation for the first twelve months. The first irrigation should be within 48 hours of root pruning. They should be deep watered every two to four weeks during the summer and once a month during the winter (adjust accordingly with rainfall). One irrigation cycle should thoroughly soak the root zones of the trees to a depth of 3 feet. The soil should dry out between watering; avoid keeping a consistently wet soil. Designate one person to be responsible for irrigating (deep watering) the trees. Check soil moisture with a soil probe before irrigating. Irrigation is best accomplished by installing a temporary above ground micro-spray system that will distribute water slowly (to avoid runoff) and evenly throughout the fenced tree protection zone but never soaking the area located within 6- feet of the tree trunk.

Pruning. Do not prune any of the trees until all construction is completed. This will help protect the tree canopies from damage. All pruning shall be completed under the direction of an ISA Certified Arborist and using ISA guidelines. Only dead wood shall be removed from tree canopies.

Washing. Periodic washing of the foliage is recommended during construction but no more than once every two weeks.

Washing should include the upper and lower leaf surfaces and the tree bark. This should continue beyond the

APPENDIX E / TREE PROTECTION MEASURES

15265 C-3 APRIL 2023

construction period at a less frequent rate with a high-powered hose only in the early morning hours. Washing will help control dirt/dust buildup that can lead to mite and insect infestations.

Inspection. An ISA Certified Arborist shall inspect the trees on at least a monthly basis for the dura tion of construction activity. A summary report documenting observations and management recommendations shall be submitted to the owner following each inspection. Photographs of representative trees are to be included in each report.

Maintenance After Construction
Once construction is complete the tree protection fencing may be removed and the following measures performed to sustain and enhance the vigor of the preserved trees.

Mulch. Provide a 4 -inch mulch layer of mulch under the canopy of trees. Mulch shall be clean and organic and provide long-term soil conditioning, soil moisture retention, and soil temperature control.

Pruning. Pruning should only be done to maintain clearance and remove broken, dead or diseased branches.

Pruning shall only take pl ace following a recommendation by an ISA Certified Arborist and performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist. No more than 15% of the canopy shall be removed at any one time. All pruning shall conform to ISA or ANSI A300 standards.

Watering. Retained trees on site shall be watered as they were prior to the commencement of construction activity.

Supplemental irrigation may be necessary for twelve months following substantial root pruning.

Watering Adjacent Plant Material . All plants near the trees shall be compatible with water requirements of said trees. Watering regime included in the site’s landscape plan shall be developed with consideration for the water needs of retained trees.

Spraying. If the trees are maintained in a healthy state, regular spraying for insect or disease control should not be necessary. If a problem does develop, an ISA Certified Arborist should be consulted; the trees may require application of insecticides to prevent the intrusion of bark -boring beetles and other in vading pests. All chemical spraying should be performed by a licensed applicator under the direction of a licensed pest control advisor.

Inspection. All trees within 30 feet of construction activity shall be monitored by an ISA Certified Arborist for the first two years after construction completion. An annual monitoring report shall be submitted to the City Arborist. Each report shall summarize the inspection efforts, document observations and management actions taken, include photographs of each tree, and compare postconstruction tree conditions with the original, pre-construction baseline condition. If any retained trees die within this inspection period, they shall be replaced at a ratio approved by the City.

APPENDIX E / TREE PROTECTION MEASURES
15265 C-4APRIL 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CDD:420-82/cc/H:COMMON/Planning Commission/Agenda Packet/2024/2024-04-22/07A 500 E TO BLVD SUP 23-70011 Attach 8 Tree Report/pz (FILE ID: SUP-2023-70011) 
&DUORV&RQWUHUDV
)URP
&DUORV&RQWUHUDV
6HQW
7KXUVGD\$SULO

30
7R
.ULVWLQD*ROHP
&F
)DELROD=HOD\D0HOLFKHU
6WHSKHQ.HDUQV
6XEMHFW
5(
(72%*HQHUDO3ODQ$PHQGPHQW
/8
$WWDFKPHQWV
6LWH&LUFXODWLRQ3ODQSURMHFWSODQVHWSGI ,ĞůůŽ͕
/ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚDĂƌŬƵĞŶŽǁŝƚŚƚŚĞWƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĐŽŶƚĂĐƚĞĚLJŽƵĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞĚLJŽƵƌŵĂŝŶĐŽŶĐĞƌŶ ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĂĚĚĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŽŶ,ŽĚĞŶĐĂŵƉZŽĂĚ͘/ŶƐƵŵŵĂƌLJ͕ƐƚĂĨĨĞdžƉůĂŝŶĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJŽĨƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ ŝƐĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚƚŽƚƌĂǀĞůĂůŽŶŐdŚŽƵƐĂŶĚKĂŬƐ;dKͿƚŽĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞ͘dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƚǁŽĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽĂĐĐĞƐƐ ƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŽŶĞŽŶdKĂŶĚĂŶŽƚŚĞƌŽŶ>ŽŵďĂƌĚ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘dŚĞĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJŽŶdKŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂƐĨƵůůŝŶďŽƵŶĚĂĐĐĞƐƐĂŶĚ ƌŝŐŚƚͲƚƵƌŶŽƵƚďŽƵŶĚŽŶůLJ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƚƌĂǀĞůŝŶŐŶŽƌƚŚďŽƵŶĚĂůŽŶŐ,ŽĚĞŶĐĂŵƉZĚ͘dŚĞƌĞ ĂƌĞĚƵĂůƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚůĞĨƚͲƚƵƌŶůĂŶĞƐĂƚ,ŽĚĞŶĐĂŵƉZĚͬ͘dK͕ĂŶĚǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐĂĐĐĞƐƐŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŽƵůĚŶĞĞĚƚŽƵƚŝůŝnjĞƚŚĞ ŽƵƚƐŝĚĞůĞĨƚͲƚƵƌŶůĂŶĞ͘ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐůLJ͕ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͕ƉĂƚƌŽŶƐ͕ĂŶĚĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƌĞŶŽƚĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚƚŽƵƚŝůŝnjĞƚŚĞ ŝŶƐŝĚĞůĞĨƚͲƚƵƌŶůĂŶĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƵƐĞƐƚŽŵĂŬĞĂhͲƚƵƌŶ͘ 
DĂƌŬĂůƐŽŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĚƚŚĂƚLJŽƵĞdžƉƌĞƐƐĞĚŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŝŶĂŶĞdžŚŝďŝƚƐŚŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂŶĚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞ ĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJƐ͘/ŚĂǀĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĂĐĐĞƐƐͬĐŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶĞdžŚŝďŝƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƉůĂŶƐĞƚ͘WůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĂĐĐĞƐƐ ĞdžŚŝďŝƚƐǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ^ƚĂĨĨZĞƉŽƌƚĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŚĞĂƌŝŶŐŶĞdžƚ DŽŶĚĂLJƉƌŝůϮϮ͕ϮϬϮϰ͘^ŚŽƵůĚLJŽƵĂƚƚĞŶĚƚŚĞŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕LJŽƵĂŶĚƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐǁŝůůŚĂǀĞƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƉƵďůŝĐ ĐŽŵŵĞŶƚ͘

WůĞĂƐĞůĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁŽĨĂŶLJĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐŽƌĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͘ 

ĂƌůŽƐŽŶƚƌĞƌĂƐͮͮ^ĞŶŝŽƌWůĂŶŶĞƌ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ
ϮϭϬϬdŚŽƵƐĂŶĚKĂŬƐŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ
dŚŽƵƐĂŶĚKĂŬƐ͕ϵϭϯϲϮ

ŵĂŝů͗ĐĐŽŶƚƌĞƌĂƐΛƚŽĂŬƐ͘ŽƌŐ
KĨĨŝĐĞ͗;ϴϬϱͿϰϰϵͲϮϯϭϳ
ŝƚLJŽĨdŚŽƵƐĂŶĚKĂŬƐ

&ŽƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŽŶƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĂƚŝƚLJ,Ăůů͕ǀŝƐŝƚǁǁǁ͘ƚŽĂŬƐ͘ŽƌŐͬĐĚĚ͘ 
ATTACHMENT #10
to PC Staff Report of
04/22/2024
$&,5&8/$7,21',$*5$0
     
6<0%2/6
 *$7(:.12;%2;$1'.(<
)2%)255(6,'(17$&&(66

&200(5&,$/3('(675,$1
&,5&8/$7,21
5(6,'(17&,5&8/$7,21
%,.(&,5&8/$7,21
/2$',1*$5($
&200(5&,$/3$5.,1*
5(6,'(17,$/3$5.,1*
6853/865(67$85$173$5.,1*
6853/86*8(673$5.,1*
0$,1$57(5,$/52$'
0$,1352-(&7(175<
*$5$*((175<
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ


NWJ\FRP
7KRXVDQG2DNV%OYG
7+286$1'2$.6&$

)250$/5(68%0,77$/
6(37(0%(5
&KHUU\7UHH&DSLWDO3DUWQHUV
1HZSRUW&HQWHU'U6WH
1HZSRUW%HDFK&$
 $6(37(0%(56(37(0%(5)(%58$5< 
EĞǁhƐĞƌ&ĞĞƐŐŽŝŶƚŽĞĨĨĞĐƚ:ƵůLJϭ͕ϮϬϮϯ͘ƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐďLJ :ƵŶĞϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϯ͕ǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĨĞĞƐ͘ƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶǀŽŝĐĞĚŽŶŽƌĂĨƚĞƌ:ƵůLJϭ͕ϮϬϮϯ͕ǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽŶĞǁ ĨĞĞƐ͘ůŝĐŬ,
Z
ƚŽǀŝĞǁ͘

&ƌŽŵ͗ĂƌůŽƐŽŶƚƌĞƌĂƐ
^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂLJ͕Ɖƌŝůϭϱ͕ϮϬϮϰϳ͗ϭϵWD
dŽ͗<ƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ'ŽůĞŵфŬƌŝƐƚŝŶĂďĂŝŶΛŚŽƚŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵх
Đ͗&ĂďŝŽůĂĞůĂLJĂDĞůŝĐŚĞƌф&ĞůĂLJĂΛƚŽĂŬƐ͘ŽƌŐх͖^ƚĞƉŚĞŶ<ĞĂƌŶƐф^<ĞĂƌŶƐΛƚŽĂŬƐ͘ŽƌŐх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗Z
͗ϱϬϬ
͘dKͬͬ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚϮϬϮϮͲϳϬϮϭϵͲ>h

,ĞůůŽ͕
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŵŝdžĞĚͲƵƐĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƚϱϬϬdŚŽƵƐĂŶĚKĂŬƐ ŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ͘ŝƚLJƐƚĂĨĨĂƌĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƌĞǀŝĞǁŝŶŐLJŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͕ƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĂŶĚĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐĂŶĚǁŝůůƌĞƐƉŽŶĚůĂƚĞƌ ƚŚŝƐǁĞĞŬ͘tĞĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞLJŽƵƌƚŝŵĞĂŶĚǀĂůƵĂďůĞŝŶƉƵƚ͘ 
<ŝŶĚƌĞŐĂƌĚƐ͕


ĂƌůŽƐŽŶƚƌĞƌĂƐͮͮ^ĞŶŝŽƌWůĂŶŶĞƌ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ
ϮϭϬϬdŚŽƵƐĂŶĚKĂŬƐŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ
dŚŽƵƐĂŶĚKĂŬƐ͕ϵϭϯϲϮ

ŵĂŝů͗ĐĐŽŶƚƌĞƌĂƐΛƚŽĂŬƐ͘ŽƌŐ
KĨĨŝĐĞ͗;ϴϬϱͿϰϰϵͲϮϯϭϳ
ŝƚLJŽĨdŚŽƵƐĂŶĚKĂŬƐ

&ŽƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŽŶƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĂƚŝƚLJ,Ăůů͕ǀŝƐŝƚǁǁǁ͘ƚŽĂŬƐ͘ŽƌŐͬĐĚĚ͘ 
EĞǁhƐĞƌ&ĞĞƐŐŽŝŶƚŽĞĨĨĞĐƚ:ƵůLJϭ͕ϮϬϮϯ͘ƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐďLJ :ƵŶĞϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϯ͕ǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĨĞĞƐ͘ƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶǀŽŝĐĞĚŽŶŽƌĂĨƚĞƌ:ƵůLJϭ͕ϮϬϮϯ͕ǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽŶĞǁ ĨĞĞƐ͘ůŝĐŬ,
Z
ƚŽǀŝĞǁ͘

&ƌŽŵ͗<ƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ'ŽůĞŵфŬƌŝƐƚŝŶĂďĂŝŶΛŚŽƚŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂLJ͕Ɖƌŝůϭϭ͕ϮϬϮϰϵ͗ϱϳD
dŽ͗DĂƌŬƵĞŶŽфDƵĞŶŽΛƚŽĂŬƐ͘ŽƌŐх͖ĂƌůŽƐŽŶƚƌĞƌĂƐфŽŶƚƌĞƌĂƐΛƚŽĂŬƐ͘ŽƌŐх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ϱϬϬ
͘dKͬͬ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚϮϬϮϮͲϳϬϮϭϵͲ>h

hd/KE͗dŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůŽƌŝŐŝŶĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵŽƵƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ͘ŽŶŽƚĐůŝĐŬůŝŶŬƐŽƌŽƉĞŶĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐƵŶůĞƐƐLJŽƵƌĞĐŽŐŶŝnjĞƚŚĞ ƐĞŶĚĞƌĂŶĚŬŶŽǁƚŚĞĐŽŶƚĞŶƚŝƐƐĂĨĞ͘
 ^ŽŵĞƉĞŽƉůĞǁŚŽƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞĚŽŶΖƚŽĨƚĞŶŐĞƚĞŵĂŝůĨƌŽŵŬƌŝƐƚŝŶĂďĂŝŶΛŚŽƚŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵ͘>ĞĂƌŶǁŚLJƚŚŝƐŝƐŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ 

,ĞůůŽĂƌůŽƐΘDĂƌŬ͕
ƐĞdžƉƌĞƐƐĞĚŝŶŵLJĞŵĂŝůĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĨĂůů͕/ĂŵƐƚŝůůĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĨůŽǁŝƐƐƵĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƚŽĂƌŝƐĞ ǁŚĞŶĂĚĚŝŶŐϰϮϳƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐ;ĂŶĚϰϴĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐͿƚŽĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ ǁŝƚŚŝŶϱϬϬĨĞĞƚŽĨŵLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞ͘
ƐƐƚĂƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞ͕ƚŚĞŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ/ƌǀŝŶŐƌŝǀĞŵƵƐƚƚƵƌŶƌŝŐŚƚŽŶ,ŽĚĞŶĐĂŵƉƚŽŵĂŬĞĂƵͲƚƵƌŶĂŶĚĚŽƵďůĞďĂĐŬ ƚŽdŚŽƵƐĂŶĚKĂŬƐůǀĚ͘zŽƵĂƌĞŶŽƚƉĞƌŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŽŵĂŬĞĂƵͲƚƵƌŶŽŶ,ŽĚĞŶĐĂŵƉĂƚ,ŝůůĐƌĞƐƚƌŝǀĞĚƵĞƚŽ ůŝŵŝƚĞĚǀŝƐŝďŝůŝƚLJ;/ƉƌĞƐƵŵĞͿƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƐůŽƉĞŽĨƚŚĞŚŝůů͘ dŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐŶŽƚŝĐĞĚŽĞƐŶŽƚƐƚĂƚĞĂŶLJƚŚŝŶŐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ͘ DĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŝŶŵLJŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚǁĂůŬǁŝƚŚĚŽŐƐ͕ďĂďŝĞƐ͕ĂŶĚĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶŝŶƚŚĞŵŽƌŶŝŶŐƐĂŶĚĞǀĞŶŝŶŐƐ͘ dŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƚƌĂĨĨŝĐďƌŝŶŐƐŵŽƌĞƌŝƐŬƐĂŶĚĐŽŶŐĞƐƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞƐĂŶĚĚŽŐƉĂƌŬƐŽƵŶĚůŝŬĞůŽǀĞůLJ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͕ƐŽ/ĚŽŶΖƚĨƵůůLJŽƉƉŽƐĞƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘/ĚŽŶΖƚƐĞĞĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞŽĨĞŶŽƵŐŚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŽĨƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ͘/ƉĂƐƐƚŚŝƐĞŵƉƚLJĨŝĞůĚŽŶƚŚĞǁĂůŬƚŽŵLJĚŽĐƚŽƌΖƐŽĨĨŝĐĞŽŶ>ŽŵďĂƌĚ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘ &ŽƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐǁŚŽǁĂůŬƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƌĞŐƵůĂƌůLJ;ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐƉĂƌƚŽĨǁŚLJǁĞůŝǀĞŚĞƌĞͿƚŚŝƐŚƵŐĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝůů ŝŵƉĂĐƚŽƵƌĚĂŝůLJůŝǀĞƐ͘

KŶĂĨŝŶĂůŶŽƚĞ͕ƚŚĞKůĚKĂŬƐƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚŶĞdžƚƚŽƚŚĞĐĂƌǁĂƐŚŝƐŶĞĂƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶŶŽǁƚŚĂƚƚŚĞLJ ŚĂǀĞĂŶŚŽŶĞƐƚĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌ͘dŚŝƐƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚŝƐĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚƚŽƌŝǀĂůDĂƐƚƌŽΖƐĂŶĚŝƐŽŶůLJŽŶĞďůŽĐŬĨƌŽŵĂƐƚĂ͘/ƚΖƐ ŐƌĞĂƚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJǁĂŶƚƐƚŽďƌŝŶŐŝŶĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĂŶĚǁŽŶĚĞƌĨƵůƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚƐƚŽƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘/Ăŵ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŽĨƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ͕ĚŝƐƚƌĂĐƚĞĚĚƌŝǀĞƌƐ͕ĂŶĚŶŽƉůĂŶƚŽŝŵƉƌŽǀĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĨůŽǁŽŶĐĞƚŚĞƐĞ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞƐĂŶĚďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƌĞƵƉĂŶĚƌƵŶŶŝŶŐ͘
DĂLJďĞƚŚŝƐŝƐƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐďĞŝŶŐĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚ͕ďƵƚŶŽƚĂƉĂƌƚŽĨƉĞƌŵŝƚƚŝŶŐ͍ dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌƚĂŬŝŶŐƚŚĞƚŝŵĞƚŽĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŵLJƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͘tĞǁĂŶƚƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƚŚĞƉĞĂĐĞĨƵů͕ƐĂĨĞ ĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚŵĂŶLJŽĨƵƐǀĂůƵĞĂƐŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŐƌŽǁƐ͘
<ƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ'ŽůĞŵ
ϴϬϱͲϲϲϬͲϲϬϵϳ
ϱϯϱ/ƌǀŝŶŐƌ͘dKϵϭϯϲϬ

&ƌŽŵ͗ĂƌůŽƐŽŶƚƌĞƌĂƐфŽŶƚƌĞƌĂƐΛƚŽĂŬƐ͘ŽƌŐх
^ĞŶƚ͗dƵĞƐĚĂLJ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϯϭ͕ϮϬϮϯϭϭ͗ϮϰD
dŽ͗<ƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ'ŽůĞŵфŬƌŝƐƚŝŶĂďĂŝŶΛŚŽƚŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵх
Đ͗DĂƌŬƵĞŶŽфDƵĞŶŽΛƚŽĂŬƐ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗Z
͗ϱϬϬ
͘dKͬͬ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚϮϬϮϮͲϳϬϮϭϵ

,ĞůůŽ͕
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘zŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐǁŝůůďĞƚĂŬĞŶŝŶƚŽĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƐǁĞ ƉƌŽĐĞĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƚůĞŵĞŶƚƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘/ĐŽƉŝĞĚDĂƌŬƵĞŶŽ͕dƌĂĨĨŝĐ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ͕ƐŽƚŚĂƚŚĞŝƐĂǁĂƌĞŽĨLJŽƵƌƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ
ĂŶĚĐŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͘




ĂƌůŽƐŽŶƚƌĞƌĂƐͮͮ^ĞŶŝŽƌWůĂŶŶĞƌ

ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ
ϮϭϬϬdŚŽƵƐĂŶĚKĂŬƐŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ
dŚŽƵƐĂŶĚKĂŬƐ͕ϵϭϯϲϮ

ŵĂŝů͗ĐĐŽŶƚƌĞƌĂƐΛƚŽĂŬƐ͘ŽƌŐ
KĨĨŝĐĞ͗;ϴϬϱͿϰϰϵͲϮϯϭϳ
ŝƚLJŽĨdŚŽƵƐĂŶĚKĂŬƐ



&ŽƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŽŶƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĂƚŝƚLJ,Ăůů͕ǀŝƐŝƚǁǁǁ͘ƚŽĂŬƐ͘ŽƌŐͬĐĚĚ͘ 


&ƌŽŵ͗<ƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ'ŽůĞŵфŬƌŝƐƚŝŶĂďĂŝŶΛŚŽƚŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂLJ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϱ͕ϮϬϮϯϯ͗ϱϲWD
dŽ͗ĂƌůŽƐŽŶƚƌĞƌĂƐфŽŶƚƌĞƌĂƐΛƚŽĂŬƐ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚϮϬϮϮͲϳϬϮϭϵ

hd/KE͗dŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůŽƌŝŐŝŶĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵŽƵƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ͘ŽŶŽƚĐůŝĐŬůŝŶŬƐŽƌŽƉĞŶĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐƵŶůĞƐƐLJŽƵƌĞĐŽŐŶŝnjĞƚŚĞ ƐĞŶĚĞƌĂŶĚŬŶŽǁƚŚĞĐŽŶƚĞŶƚŝƐƐĂĨĞ͘

ĞĂƌĂƌůŽƐŽŶƚƌĞƌĂƐ͕
 zŽƵĚŽŶΖƚŽĨƚĞŶŐĞƚĞŵĂŝůĨƌŽŵŬƌŝƐƚŝŶĂďĂŝŶΛŚŽƚŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵ͘>ĞĂƌŶǁŚLJƚŚŝƐŝƐŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ ƐĂϭϱͲLJĞĂƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂŶĚĂůŝĨĞƚŝŵĞ;ϰϱLJĞĂƌƐͿƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŽĨdŚŽƵƐĂŶĚKĂŬƐ͕/ǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽ ĞdžƉƌĞƐƐĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĨŽƌƚŚĞDŝdžĞĚͲhƐĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝŶƚŚĞƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĂƚϱϬϬ ĂƐƚdŚŽƵƐĂŶĚKĂŬƐůǀĚ͘
DLJŚŽŵĞŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚϱϯϱ/ƌǀŝŶŐƌŝǀĞ͘DLJŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚ/ĂůƌĞĂĚLJĨŝŶĚŽƵƌǁĂLJƚŽd͘K͘ůǀĚƚŽďĞĐŽŶǀŽůƵƚĞĚ ĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞŝƐůĂŶĚƐŽŶ,ŽĚĞŶĐĂŵƉZĚ͘tĞĐĂŶŶŽƚŵĂŬĞĂůĞĨƚƚƵƌŶ͕ǁĞŵƵƐƚŐŽƌŝŐŚƚĂĐƌŽƐƐϮůĂŶĞƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŶ ŵĂŬĞĂhͲƚƵƌŶ͘dŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝůůĂĚĚƚŽƚŚĞŝƐƐƵĞǁŝƚŚϯϮϴƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƵŶŝƚƐϱϬϬĨĞĞƚĨƌŽŵŵLJŚŽƵƐĞ͘ /ǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJŽƉƉŽƐĞƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚĨŽƌŵĂŶLJƌĞĂƐŽŶƐĂŶĚǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽďĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĞĚŽĨĂŶLJŽƉĞŶ ŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐĂƚƚŚĞŝƚLJǁŚĞƌĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĐĂŶďĞŚĞĂƌĚ͘ /ĨƚŚĞŝƚLJĚŽĞƐĂƉƉƌŽǀĞƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕/ǁŽƵůĚĞdžƉĞĐƚƚŚĞŝƚLJƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞŵŽĚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ;ŵĂŬŝŶŐŝƚĞĂƐLJƚŽƚƵƌŶ ůĞĨƚŽŶƚŽ,ŽĚĞŶĐĂŵƉZĚĨƌŽŵ/ƌǀŝŶŐƌ͘ͿƚŽ,ŽĚĞŶĐĂŵƉZŽĂĚ;ďĞƚǁĞĞŶdŚŽƵƐĂŶĚKĂŬƐůǀĚ͘Θ,ŝůůĐƌĞƐƚƌ͘Ϳ ƚŽƚŚĞ^ƉĞĐŝĂůhƐĞWĞƌŵŝƚϮϬϮϯͲϳϬϬϬϭ͘
tĞŚĂǀĞŚĂĚĂŶŝƐƐƵĞŝŶƚŚĞƉĂƐƚǁŚĞŶΗŶŽhͲƚƵƌŶΗƐŝŐŶƐǁĞƌĞŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚ͘>ĂƌƌLJdĂLJŚĞůƉĞĚƌĞƐŽůǀĞƚŚĞŝƐƐƵĞďLJ ƉƵƚƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŽůĚƐŝŐŶƐďĂĐŬƵƉĂůůŽǁŝŶŐĨŽƌĞĂƐĞŽĨƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĨůŽǁ͘ dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌƚĂŬŝŶŐƚŚĞƚŝŵĞƚŽĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐǁŚŽǁŝůůďĞŐƌĞĂƚůLJŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚďLJƚŚŝƐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ ĂŶĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚǀŽůƵŵĞ͘
dĂŬĞĂƌĞ͕
<ƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ'ŽůĞŵ
ϴϬϱͲϲϲϬͲϲϬϵϳ

CDD:420-82/cc/H:COMMON/Planning Commission/Agenda Packet/2024/2024-04-22/07A 500 E TO BLVD SUP 23-70011 Attach 10 Public Corresp/pz (FILE ID: SUP-2023-70011)

THOUSAND OAKS

PLANNING COMMISSION
Supplemental
Information
Packet 1
April 22, 2024
Agenda Related Items
Meeting of April 22, 2024
Supplemental Information:

Any agenda-related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the Planning Commission after the Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as needed, typically they are distributed on the Thursday or Friday preceding the Planning Commission meeting and/or on Monday before the meeting. Supplemental Packets on Thursday or Friday are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department, 2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2). All Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the Planning Commission on the City’s website www.toaks.org.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): In compliance with the ADA, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting or other services in conjunction with this meeting, please contact the Planning Division, (805) 449-2500.

Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City in ensuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.

C om rnunity Developn1ent Department
MEMO RANDUM ~ I 00 Thousand Oaks Boulevard • Thousand Oaks, C, \ 91362 Pho11<: 805/ 449.250(1 • Fax 8()5/ 449.2575 • ww wtoak s.org To:

From:

Date:

Subject:

Planning Commission
Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director
April 22, 2024
Regarding Item 07 A - Proposed Mixed-Use Development
(Commercial and Muti-Family Residential) - Special Use
Permit (SUP) 2023-70011, Development Agreement (DAGR)
2023-70001, Protected Tree Permit (PTP) 2023-70067, and Environmental Impact Report Addendum California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 2023-70004
Attached please find responses to questions received from a Commissioner (Attachment #1) and additional public correspondence recieved after the staff report was published (Attchment #2).

Additionally, below are proposed revisions to project Condition No. 122 regarding the Affordable Housing Covenant and also revisions to the Level of Service discussion within the Traffic Section of the staff report. It should be noted that the conclusions of the staff report regarding traffic evaluation, impacts, and improvements are not affected by the proposed changes.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
122. Affordable Housing Covenant - Approval of this residential project is subject to execution of an Affordable Housing Covenant entered into between the Developer and City of Thousand Oaks. Said Affordable Housing Covenant shall incorporate the following conditions and is subject to approval by the City Attorney and Community Development Director. a. Affordable Housing Covenant shall be recorded prior to final building permit issuance. The covenant shall be recorded with the County of Ventura to provide notice and obligations to any future owners. b. The Affordable Housing Covenant shall require 44 units as affordable units. 44 units will be preserved to households at the lower-income level of 80% of the Ventura County area median income.
c. Developer agrees to execute an Affordable Housing Covenant with City that provides for the on-going affordability of these 44 restricted

Cherry Tree Development, LLC
(SUP 2023-70011/ DAGR 2023-70001/PTP 2023-70067/CEQA 2023-70004) April 22, 2024

units for 55 years from the date of the City's issuance of the final certificate of occupancy.
d. The City may extend the affordable period if the owner does not comply with the Affordable Housing Covenant.
e. Affordable Housing Covenant shall include the affordable housing site plan identifying the location of the specific affordable unit, bedroom size, and restriction level.
f. Affordable units should shall be comparable in exterior appearance and overall quality of construction to market-rate dwelling units in the same residential development. The design and appearance of the affordable units shall be compatible with the design of the market­ rate units.
g. Affordable units shall proportional, in number of bedrooms and gross floor area of habitable space to the market rate units, including washer and dryer, and access to all amenities.
h. Affordable units should shall be dispersed throughout the mixed-use and multi-family residential buildings of the development in a manner acceptable to the City. The on-site resident manager's unit shall not be counted as one of the affordable units.
i. The operation and maintenance of the affordable residential units shall comply with applicable property maintenance and habitability codes. The deed restriction/affordable housing covenant shall address operation and maintenance performance standards and schedules to ensure parity of operation and maintenance between the affordable residential units and the market rate units at all times. j. The Affordable Housing Covenant shall require the Developer to create an Affirmative Further Fair Housing Marketing plan to ensure that fair housing laws and practices are implemented.
k. The Affordable Housing Covenant shall require the Developer and future owners to annually verify and certify household income as well as tenant's occupancy.

I. The Affordable Housing Covenant shall require the Developer and future owners to submit to the City an annual report. The Affordable Housing Covenant shall be in compliance with the latest California State requirements.

Cherry Tree Development, LLC
(SUP 2023-70011/ DAGR 2023-70001/PTP 2023-70067/CEQA 2023-70004) April 22, 2024

Traffic
As required by CEQA, a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis was conducted to evaluate the project's transportation impacts. The proposed project Circulation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Study dated April 2024 details the VMT analysis and is summarized in Table 10, Project VMT Analysis Summary.

T bl 10 P . t VMT A . 5 a e - rojec narvsrs ummary
Project VMT Calculation Citywide Project Project Av.erage Daily TAZ* Daily Component Methodology VMT VMT Difference Residential Citywide average 15.32 VMT 11.05 VMT 28% less daily VMT per than the City-
resident wide averaqe
Commercial Citywide average 22.55 VMT 21.72 VMT 4% less than daily VMT per the City-wide
employee average
* TAZ = Traffic Analysis Zone
The VMT analysis of the project determined the impacts resulting from the project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required (see the Transportation Section included with the Addendum to EIR No 327). As shown in Table 10, the project's daily residential VMT per capita and commercial VMT per employee would be approximately 28% and 4% less than the City-wide averages, respectively. As such, neither the VMT per capita nor VMT per employee would exceed the Citywide average VMT baselines, and the project-generated VMT impact would be less than significant. It should be noted that the study provides a conservative analysis. The VMT analysis assumed a proposed ground-floor commercial area that included 3,200 square feet of restaurant use out of the total 8,500 sq. ft of commercial area proposed. The resulting analysis is conservative in assuming more intense commercial uses would occur, and actual impacts would be reduced if general retail were to occupy the total 8,500 sq. ft of commercial area proposed.

While VMT is the metric for assessing transportation impacts under CEQA, it should be noted that staff required traffic delay to be analyzed as part of the planning review process, outside of CEQA. The project is adjacent to the intersection of Thousand Oaks Boulevard/Hodencamp Road and Thousand Oaks Boulevard/Lombard Street. The Vehicle Miles Traveled Studycirculation study examined eight intersections in the project vicinity to assess the existing Level of Service (LOS) plus the proposed project (Attachment #?).-_Based on the analysis,

Cherry Tree Development, LLC
(SUP 2023-70011/ DAGR 2023-70001/PTP 2023-70067/CEQA 2023-70004) April 22, 2024

the study concluded that all studied intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during morning and evening peak hours, \Vhich v10uld continue to operate at an acceptable LOS of D or better with the proposed project. Per Resolution No. 2019-011, a Level of ServiceLOS CG is the minimum standard acceptable with the exception of specific intersections on Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Hillcrest Drive, and Moorpark Road that maintain LOS D as the minimum standard acceptable.

Based on the analysis, all studied intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during morning and evening peak hours. The study concluded that all study intersections would continue to operate at LOS C or better with the proposed project. As such, the project will not cause adverse impacts related to LOS at nearby intersections. In addition, the Public Works Department has included conditions of approval requiring adequate line of sight visibility, traffic impact fees, and any necessary traffic signal, signs, and striping to accommodate the proposed project driveways. It should be noted that the proposed Thousand Oaks Boulevard driveway is designed to accommodate full inbound movements and right-turn outbound movements only. The proposed Lombard Street driveway is proposed to accommodate full inbound and outbound access.

1 Carlos Contreras
From: Carlos Contreras
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 4:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Stephen Kearns; Fabiola Zelaya Melicher; Patrick Hehir Subject: RE: Questions regarding Case 7A (PC meeting of 4/22/2024) Importance: High
Hello,
Thank you for your inquiry, Staff prepared a response to your quesƟons in blue bold below. (1) Commercial pedestrian circulation for Building A
On the circulation diagram (A0-16 of the project plan - pg 17 of Exhibit 6), it indicates that the commercial part of Building A has two entrances - one facing Thousand Oaks Boulevard and another facing the parking spots to the east of Building A. However, on the ground level site plan (A1-1 of the project plan - pg 21 of Exhibit 6), it appears there is only one entrance facing on the east side of Building A.

Which is correct? Also, if the site plan is correct (where the only commercial building entrance does not face Thousand Oaks Boulevard), can you opine on how this is consistent with the intent of SP- 20?
 The 1,500 s.f. commercial component of Building A provides one (1) entrance along the east elevation adjacent the proposed surface parking and is consistent with Sheet A1-1 of the project plan set. Since initial project submittal in March 2023, there have been changes to the project plans and sheet A0-16 of the project plan set does not reflect the latest iteration with one entrance along the east elevation of Building A.
 Further, due to the site constraints from the flood plain along the north portion of the site, Building A cannot be placed adjacent to the Thousand Oaks Boulevard frontage and so the applicant designed the project with the entrance along the east elevation to activate the frontage facing east towards the commercial component of Building B, thus complementing the village design of the mixed-use project. It should be noted that the site design and layout of Building A takes into consideration: 1) the public open space along the northwestern portion of the site and adjacent to Thousand Oaks Boulevard; 2) the ground level commercial component of the 3 live/work units adjacent to the 1,500 s.f. commercial, and 3) the ground floor commercial along the west elevation of Building B. These design considerations serve as a transition between the public and semi-public space to the proposed mixed-use buildings. As such, the proposed design complements the mixed-use design concept and in alignment with SP-20 development policies and guidelines. (2) Calculation of number of affordable units, density bonuses, and concessions I wanted to understand why the "unlimited units" which is a component of SP-20 is not considered ATTACHMENT #1
(To Supplemental 1
2 We are being asked to evaluate modifications from our objective design standards to accommodate the project, when we may not be receiving the public benefit (in the form of low income affordable units) we are entitled to receive from the development.

If the baseline were 236 units (183 from the 30 un/ac density + 53 from the proposed units above nonresidential uses), the proposed 44 units would constitute 18.6% affordable (vs the current 24%). This leads to a density bonus of 33.5% (vs 50%) or 80 units, leading to a project of 316 units (vs 328). This would also lead to a reduction to 2 concessions vs 3.

Or, if the applicant wanted to yield the 50% density bonus and 3 concessions granted for 24% low income affordable units, the applicant would need to provide 57 affordable units (vs 44). The density bonus would be larger - 118 units - leading to a project of 354 units, but there would be 57 affordable units provided. In either case, the project would yield a higher percentage of low income affordable units.  The baseline used to calculate density of the site for purposes of applying state density bonus law is solely based on the site acreage multiplied by the maximum allowed density per the sites Land Use designation, which is this case is 30du/ac. As mentioned in the staff report, based on the 6.09-acre lot size the maximum base density for this project is 183 dwelling units. Because the project includes 44 lower-income affordable units a 50% density bonus is applied to the project which will render 275 total units (183 base units plus the 92 density bonus units). SP-20 does not include an acreage formula for the 53 dwelling units above commercial, the 53 units are included once the project is designed and the commercial component of the project is determined. The 53 unlimited units are allowed per SP-20 and are not used to calculate the site density for purposes of obtaining a density bonus under state law.
(3) Conditions on affordable units
Condition 122(f) states that “[a]ffordable units should be comparable in exterior appearance and overall quality of construction to market-rate dwelling units in the same residential development.” (bold and italics added)
Condition 122(h) states that “[a]ffordable units should be dispersed throughout the mixed-use and multi-family residential buildings of the development in a manner acceptable to the City.” (bold and italics added)
Can we change these to “shall” instead of “should”?
Also, these changes have been made previously in other projects, so is there a way that the default language for projects with affordable units include these changes in the future?  The condition of approval will be revised to include “shall” instead of “should,”as indicated and will be applied to future projects.

Carlos Contreras || Senior Planner
Community Development Department
part of the baseline for the applicant in order to gain density bonuses and concessions. 3 Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Email: [email protected]
Office: (805) 449-2317
City of Thousand Oaks
For information on services available at City Hall, visit www.toaks.org/cdd.

New User Fees go into effect July 1, 2023. Applications submitted with minimum application requirements by June 30, 2023, will be subject to current fees. Applications invoiced on or after July 1, 2023, will be subject to new fees. Click HERE to view.

Planning Division
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
1 Lori Goor
From: Community Development Department
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 11:10 AM
To: Lori Goor
Cc: Carlos Contreras; Fabiola Zelaya Melicher
Subject: FW: Letter of Support - Planning Commission Item 7A Attachments: Cherry Tree Capital Parterns Mixed-Use Development_Conejo Valley Chamber....pdf Hello,
Please add to the Supplemental.

Thank you,
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
(805) 449-2500
New Us
er Fees go into effect July 1, 2023. ApplicaƟons submiƩed with minimum applicaƟon requirements by June 30, 2023, will be subject to current fees. ApplicaƟons invoiced on or aŌer July 1, 2023, will be subject to new fees. Click HERE to view.

From: Danielle Borja <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 11:06 AM
To: Community Development Department <[email protected]> Subject: Letter of Support - Planning Commission Item 7A CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
Please find attached
the Chamber’s letter of support for item 7A on the Planning Commission agenda this evening.

Thank you,
Danielle
Danielle Borja l President/CEO
Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ATTACHMENT #2
(To Supplemental 1)
2 600 Hampshire Road #200  |  Westlake Village, CA 91361 P: 805.370.0035 | D: 805.267.7507

2024 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Dianne McKay Chair of the Board Mustang Marketing
Rondi Guthrie Chair Elect
Athens Services
Ed Sahakian Chair Emeritus Ventura County Credit Union Eva Gomez Treasurer California State University Channel Islands Matt Midura Secretary Good Cause Marketing Partners
Jake Demirchyan
Director-at-Large
Caruso
Lisa Safaeinili Director-at-Large Westminster Free Clinic Kimberly Tharpe
Director-at-Large
Citizens Business Bank
Danielle Borja President / CEO Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce

DIRECTORS
Debbie Adrian
Warner Pacific Insurance Services
Leanne Alva
Connect Escrow, Inc.

Emily Capretta
Proactive Sports Performance
Tom Cohen
Cohen Land Use Law
Marja Cross
Janss Marketplace
Elizabeth Dritz
Takeda
Mike Dutra
Candu Graphics
Kinsie Flame
Jacob Flame’s Tang Soo Do University
Vikas Kaushik
TechAhead
William Koehler
Law Offices of William D. Koehler
Lauren Lerch
Your CBD Store
Ruben Maciel
The SL Group
Andrea McClellan
Boy Scouts of America -Ventura County Council
David McGovern
Hyatt Regency Westlake
Michelle Menzel
GreatWay Roofing
Aaron Mercer
Express Employment Professionals
Lucia Minaya
The Oaks Shopping Center
Mark Ortgies
Southern California Orthopedic Institute
Drew Pletcher
Pletcher Law, APC
Niki Richardson
TOArts
Ryan Van Ommeren
California Lutheran University
Ryan Selvin
Selvin Property Management
Gabriella Sherman, MD
Los Robles Health System

600 Hampshire Road # 200 • Westlake Village, CA 91361
T: (805) 370-0035 • conejochamber.org
April 22, 2024

Chair Don Lanson
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362

Re: Cherry Tree Capital Partners Mixed-Use Development Proposal – Support

Dear Chair Lanson and Commissioners,

On behalf of the 700+ members of the Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce representing over 40,000 local jobs, I am writing to support the proposed mixed-use development by Cherry Tree Capital Partners that utilizes a long identified “opportunity site” to prioritize housing along Thousand Oaks Blvd.

Our Board of Directors has continuously voiced their support for projects that provide a greater diversity of housing options, appeal to young professionals and complement the future Campus Master Plan. This development is poised to be one of those projects with a thoughtfully crafted balance of “front yard” park space, affordable units, residential amenities and a strategic retail activation.

This proposal is aligned with the city’s goal of implementing high quality revitalization projects along Thousand Oaks Boulevard and continued support of affordable housing production with 44 units designated for lower-income residents. As we struggle with both housing availability and affordability for our local workforce, 328 units are a meaningful step in the right direction as we work towards reversing the trend of being the least affordable county in the United States.

We thank you for your thoughtful consideration and believe the proposal merits the Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council.

Sincerely,
Danielle Borja, MBA
President/CEO
Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce

From: Community Development Department
To: Lori Goor; Carlos Contreras; Fabiola Zelaya Melicher Subject: FW: Planning Commission--Letter of Support (#7(A)) Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 12:32:13 PM
Attachments: Letter of Support- Cherry Tree (#7(A)).pdf

From: Rick Schroeder <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 12:05 PM
To: Community Development Department <[email protected]> Subject: Planning Commission--Letter of Support (#7(A))

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Rick A. Schroeder, Esq.

President & CEO |Many Mansions
1259 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
805.496.4948 x227
phone |805.497.1305 fax |805.432.0862 cell
Cal. DRE #01999799
Cal. DRE (Many Mansions) #02003927
www.manymansions.org

April22,2024
CityPlanningCommission
CityofThousandOaks
2100ThousandOaksBlvd.

ThousandOaks,CA91362
ViaE-Mail
ReItem#7(A)CherryTreeDevelopment
LetterofSupport
DearMembersoftheCityPlanningCommission:

MynameisRickSchroeder,President&CEOofManyMansions,a
nonprofitaffordablehousingdeveloper,owner,manager,andservice providerheadquarteredinThousandOaks.

Wesupporttheactionssoughtbytheapplicantattonight’shearing andassetforthinItem7(A).

TheCityofThousandOaksneedsmoreaffordablehousing.

Theproposedprojectincludes44unitsofnewaffordablehousing—all unitsrestrictedtohouseholdsatorbelow80%AreaMedianIncome(‘low- income’).
itisbecomingincreasinglydifficulttodevelopaffordablehousing inthisCity.Whilestateandfederalaffordablehousingfinancingsources haveincreased,thesefundingsourcesdonotfavorsuburbancitiessuchas ThousandOaks,givenitshighlandcosts,lowdensities,andlackofpublic transportation.

Therefore,theCityshouldtakeadvantageofthedevelopmentof
suchaffordablehousingasincludedinlargernon-affordablehousing developments.

TheCityofThousandOakssimplyneedsmorehousing.The
mereshortageofhousingintheCityplacestremendouspressureon housingcostsandrentsandimpactsoverallavailableaffordablehousing.

Thelackofanynewhousingforceshomeownersandrentersto‘crowd 1259E.ThousandOaksBlvd.,•ThousandOaks,CA91362(805)496-4948•wwwmanymansions.org CityofThousandOaksPlanningCommission
April22,2024
Page2
out’low-incomeresidentsanddrivesuprents.Theaveragerentfora two-bedroomapartmentunitinThousandOaksnowexceeds$2,700.

Theproposedprojectadds328unitsofhousingtotheCity’s
housingstock.Thisproject,alongwithothercurrentresidential developmentsintheCity,willhelploweroverallrentsandthusmake existinghousingmoreaffordable.

Thebeautifuldesign,proposedretail,andotheramenitiesmakes theproposedprojectawelcomeadditiontotheCityofThousandOaks.

Wesupporttheproposedaction.

RickA.Schroeder,
President&CEO,
ManyMansions
1 Lori Goor
From: Community Development Department
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 2:59 PM
To: Lori Goor
Cc: Carlos Contreras; Fabiola Zelaya Melicher
Subject: FW: WSRCC - [City of Thousand Oaks, Mill Creek Mixed-Use Project, 500 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd] - Comment Letter
Attachments: 20240422_ThousandOaks_MillCreekMixedUse_PCMeeting_CL_Signed.pdf Hello,

Please add to the Supplemental.

Thank you,

Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
(805) 449-2500

New User Fees go into effect July 1, 2023. ApplicaƟons submiƩed with minimum applicaƟon requirements by June 30, 2023, will be subject to current fees. ApplicaƟons invoiced on or aŌer July 1, 2023, will be subject to new fees. Click HERE to view.

From: Christina Clifton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 2:53 PM
To: Community Development Department <[email protected]> Cc: Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney at Law, P.C. <[email protected]>; Jeremy Herwitt <[email protected]> Subject: WSRCC - [City of Thousand Oaks, Mill Creek Mixed-Use Project, 500 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd] - Comment Letter

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good Afternoon,

Attached please find a comment letter our office is submitting for today's Planning Commission meeting regarding agenda item 7.

We would appreciate confirmation of this email and its attachment.

Thank you for your time,
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 2 Christina
--
Christina Clifton, Paralegal
Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm - Environmental & Land Use Litigation 139 South Hudson Avenue Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 314-3821
Fax: (626) 389-5414
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://www.mitchtsailaw.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages accompanying it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail at [email protected] or by telephone at (626) 314-3821 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you.

P: (626) 314-3821
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]

Mitchell M. Tsai
Law Firm
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
April 22, 2024
Don Lanson
Chair, Planning Commission
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Ph: (805) 4492151
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Thousand Oaks’ 500 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard Mixed- Use Project (SCH#: 2010011013).

Dear Chair Lanson and Honorable Commissioners,
On behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (“Western Carpenters” or “WSRCC”), our firm is submitting these comments in response to the City of Thousand Oaks’ (“City”) April 2024, Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the 500 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard Mixed-Use project (“Project”), which the City has associated with, and incorporated into, the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan – Amended November 2022 (“SP”).

The Western Carpenters is a labor union representing almost 90,000 union carpenters in 12 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.

The proposed project contemplates a 609,633 square foot mixed-use development consisting of 328 residential units with a 50% Density Bonus providing 44 lower- income affordable units, including 8,500 square feet of commercial retail and restaurant space, linear park, pocket park, dog park, plazas, seating areas, and other amenities. The Project’s 328 residential units would be distributed across one 4-story mixed-use building, one 5-story podium-style mixed-use building, and one 5-story podium-style multi-family residential building with maximum building heights ranging from 47 feet to 62 feet. The project includes 475 total parking spaces consisting of 16 surface parking spaces and two semi-subterranean parking structures comprising 32 City of Thousand Oaks – 500 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.

April 22, 2024

commercial and 427 residential parking spaces. The project is comprised of five (5) parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 525-0-012-230, 669-0-201-030, 669-0- 201-040, 669-0-201-050, and 669-0-201-105).

Individual members of WSRCC live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.

The Western States Regional Council of Carpenters expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project. (Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub.

Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see also Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.)
The Western Carpenters incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. See Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).

Moreover, the Western Carpenters requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”) (Gov. Code, §§ 65000–65010). California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and California Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

I. THE CITY SHOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF A LOCAL
WORKFORCE TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY’S ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT
The City should require the Project to be built using a local workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor-Management Apprenticeship Program approved by the State of California, have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state-approved apprenticeship training program, or who are registered apprentices in a state-approved apprenticeship training program.

City of Thousand Oaks – 500 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.

April 22, 2024

Community benefits such as local hire can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.

Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
[L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost —and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1
Furthermore, workforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program” can result in air pollutant reductions.2

1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve City of Thousand Oaks – 500 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.

April 22, 2024

Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.

As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.3
Moreover, local hire mandates and skill-training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan have noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions given that the skill requirements of available local jobs must match those held by local residents.4 Some municipalities have even tied local hire and other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. Cervero and Duncan note that:

In nearly built -out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing. The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment -ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.

Recently, the State of California verified its commitment towards workforce development through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022,

Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 3 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf
4 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.

City of Thousand Oaks – 500 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.

April 22, 2024

otherwise known as Assembly Bill No. 2011 (“AB2011”). AB2011 amended the Planning and Zoning Law to allow ministerial, by-right approval for projects being built alongside commercial corridors that meet affordability and labor requirements.

The City should consider utilizing local workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate greenhouse gas, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts.

II. THE CITY SHOULD IMPOSE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE PROJECT’S CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT
COMMUNITY SPREAD OF COVID-19 AND OTHER INFECTIOUS

DISEASES
Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID-

19.5 Western Carpenters recommend that the Lead Agency adopt additional requirements to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities. WSRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site.

In particular, based upon Western Carpenters’ experience with safe construction site work practices, WSRCC recommends that the Lead Agency require that while construction activities are being conducted at the Project Site:

Construction Site Design:
• The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points.
• Entry points will have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open.

5 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT

CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/ covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx.

City of Thousand Oaks – 500 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.

April 22, 2024

• The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conducting temperature screening.
• A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening.
• The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6 -foot social distancing position for when you approach the screening area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site map for additional details.
• There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing you through temperature screening.
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site.

Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non -contact devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate
[ZONE 2]
• After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody City of Thousand Oaks – 500 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.

April 22, 2024

gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors.
• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading.
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her human resources (HR) representative and provide them with a copy of Annex A.

Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease
Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic
infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of s ick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10
people including all -hands meetings and all -hands lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of
Public Health or applicable local public health agencies.6 The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require that

6 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/NABTU_ CPWR_Standards_COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-safety/docs/pw_guidelines-construction-sites.pdf.

City of Thousand Oaks – 500 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.

April 22, 2024

all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.

Western Carpenters has also developed a rigorous Infection Control Risk Assessment (“ICRA”) training program to ensure it delivers a workforce that understands how to identify and control infection risks by implementing protocols to protect themselves and all others during renovation and construction projects in healthcare environments.7
ICRA protocols are intended to contain pathogens, control airflow, and protect patients during the construction, maintenance and renovation of healthcare facilities.

ICRA protocols prevent cross contamination, minimizing the risk of secondary infections in patients at hospital facilities.

The City should require the Project to be built using a workforce trained in ICRA protocols.

III. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is a California statute designed to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”), § 15002, subd. (a)(1). 8 At its core, its purpose is to “inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.)
A. Background Concerning Environmental Impact Reports Under CEQA.

CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage, when possible, by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subds. (a)(2)-(3); see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port

7 For details concerning Western Carpenters’ ICRA training program, see https://icrahealthcare.com/.
8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq, are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 217.

City of Thousand Oaks – 500 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.

April 22, 2024

Comes (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at p. 400.) To achieve this purpose, CEQA mandates preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for projects so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed. (Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80.) The EIR requirement “is the heart of CEQA.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15003(a).)
The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2).) If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns” specified in Public Resources Code section 21081. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15092, subds. (b)(2)(A)-(B).) While the courts review an EIR using an ‘abuse of discretion’ standard, the reviewing court is not to uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. (Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at pp. 391, 409 fn. 12) (internal quotations omitted).) A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference. (Id.) Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131.) As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. (91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (internal quotations omitted).) The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. (Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 80 (quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449-450).) The EIR’s function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been considered. (Id.) For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an City of Thousand Oaks – 500 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.

April 22, 2024

adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. (Id.)
B. The Project Requires Preparation and Circulation of Its Own Supplemental EIR.

Section 15088.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that an EIR must be recirculated whenever there is disclosure of significant new information. Significant new information includes: (1) disclosure of a new significant environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new proposed mitigation measure; (2) disclosure of a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; and (3) disclosure of a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed which would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project which the project proponents decline to adopt. (Id.)
Additionally, an EIR must be recirculated when it is so fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment is precluded. (Id. [citing Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043].) A lead agency must undertake supplemental CEQA review when substantial changes to a project or its circumstances require that lead agency to render new approvals that in turn require major revisions to a prior CEQA document due to new unstudied environmental impacts. (Pub. Res. Code §21166(a); CEQA Guidelines, §15162(a)(1); Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Association (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929; Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1538. Cf., Benton v. Board of Supervisors (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467, Eller Media Company v. Community Redevelopment Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 25.)
New information triggers a supplemental EIR to inform an agency’s new discretionary project approval if it (1) was not known and could not have been known at the time the initial EIR was certified as complete for an original project, (2) the information shows new or substantially more severe significant impacts, or demonstrates the feasibility of important mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible, or discloses important new mitigation measures or alternatives, and (3) the new information is of substantial importance to the project. §21166(c); Guidelines, §15162(a)(3).

City of Thousand Oaks – 500 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.

April 22, 2024

Section 15164 of the CEQA guidelines provides: “The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” (Id. subd. (a).) “When there are changes in a project after the certification of a Final Report, the agency can prepare an Addendum to the Report if the changes do not substantially modify the analysis in the original Report. The Addendum is acceptable, rather than a new or Supplemental EIR, when there are only minor technical changes or additions which do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment.” (Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. County of Ventura (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 429, 435(citing 9 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed.2011), § 25A:19, p. 25A–107, fns. omitted.))

1. The Project Conflicts with Various Aspects of the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan.

Here, the Project reflects substantial changes from the SP, such that the City’s provision of the Addendum is not CEQA-compliant. For example, here, the Project contemplates constructing three mixed-used buildings: one that will be four (4) stories in height and two that will be five (5) stories in height. Meanwhile, the SP provides a Special Standard for Thousand Oaks Boulevard Street Frontage projects that “[t]he maximum average building height is 50 feet, not to exceed 3 stories.” (See SP at pp. 60-64; emphasis added.) Additionally, the Project contemplates that 18% of frontage along Thousand Oaks Boulevard will be retail, when the SP requires any building with greater than 100 feet of frontage along Thousand Oaks Boulevard to maintain a minimum of 50% retail frontage area. (See SP at p. 65.) In these regards, the Project as proposed directly conflicts with the parameters of the SP, in that the structures being contemplated by the Project exceed the building size permitted by the SP and do not satisfy the SP’s retail frontage requirements.

Where the lead agency of a project fails to analyze “‘[s]ubstantial changes’ in the project, requiring ‘major revisions’ in the EIR,” courts find that such agencies have abused their discretion by failing to prepare a supplemental EIR. (Ventura Foothill Neighbors, supra, (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th at 436 (citing Committee For Green Foothills v.

Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 54).) Irrespective of whether the Project has sought various concessions from the City for aspects of the Project that conflict with the SP, the City cannot credibly contend that the Project fits neatly within the SP’s scope and results in no “substantial changes” to City of Thousand Oaks – 500 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.

April 22, 2024

the Project relative to those contemplated in the FEIR for the SP. Further analysis of the Project, by way of a supplemental EIR, is required in this instance.

2. The Project’s Assessment of Impacts to Biological Resources is Outdated and Inadequate.

In addition to the Project’s conflict with the SP, the biological survey conducted in connection with the Addendum is inadequate for CEQA purposes. The FEIR’s biological mitigation measures were developed in 2011 based on site surveys taken at that time. Thus, the biological surveys on which the FEIR’s mitigation measures are premised were conducted approximately 13 years ago and are now consummately outdated. The validity of those prior mitigation measures cannot be justified view a 5- hour nesting bird survey performed on a single day, as the City has attempted here. (See Appendix K to Addendum.) The site must be reevaluated for the presence of other potential special-status species, such that the efficacy of the prior mitigation measures can be analyzed.

Additionally, the Project contemplates removal of 33 trees, 22 of which are protected oak trees. The FEIR for the SP provides no indication that it contemplated removal of this quantity of protected oaks, and the proposed removal is well in excess of the City’s Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Standards and Guidelines. Accordingly, the Project presents substantial new information regarding its environmental impacts, such that the Project warrants preparation of its own supplemental EIR.

IV. CONCLUSION
Western Carpenters submits that the City is required by CEQA to circulate a separate DEIR for the Project to address the aforementioned concerns. Absent doing so, any approval of this Project under the prior 2011 FEIR certified for the SP would violate CEQA and subvert the public environmental review process. If the City has any questions or concerns regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

City of Thousand Oaks – 500 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.

April 22, 2024

Sincerely,

____________________________
Jeremy H. Herwitt
Attorneys for Western States Regional Council of Carpenters

Attached:

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C).

EXHIBIT A

1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
March 8, 2021

Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101

Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts.

Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3

1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.

2 Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:

Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6 Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.

Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project- specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the

4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9.

3 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are:
“[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12 Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Minimum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90

9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86.

4 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location.

Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C).

Local Hire Provision Net Change
Without Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 With Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and location.

14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85.

5 Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,

Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Location Type Location Name Rural H-W
(miles)
Urban H-W
(miles)
Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8
Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3
Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11
Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8
Air Basin San Francisco

10.8 10.8
Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8
Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8
Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8
Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54
Air District Calaveras

16.8 10.8
Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8
Air District El Dorado

16.8 10.8
Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8
Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8
Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3
Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mariposa

16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino

16.8 10.8
Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air District Monterey Bay

16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast

16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern

16.8 10.8
Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8
Air District Sacramento 15 10
Attachment A
Air District San Diego

16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin

16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo

13 13
Air District Santa Barbara

8.3 8.3
Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8
Air District Siskiyou County

16.8 10.8
Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8
Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8
Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10
County Alameda 10.8 10.8
County Alpine 16.8 10.8
County Amador 16.8 10.8
County Butte 12.54 12.54
County Calaveras 16.8 10.8
County Colusa 16.8 10.8
County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8
County Del Norte 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado- 16.8 10.8
County Fresno 16.8 10.8
County Glenn 16.8 10.8
County Humboldt 16.8 10.8
County Imperial 10.2 7.3
County Inyo 16.8 10.8
County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8
County Kern-San 16.8 10.8
County Kings 16.8 10.8
County Lake 16.8 10.8
County Lassen 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles- 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles- 19.8 14.7
County Madera 16.8 10.8
County Marin 10.8 10.8
County Mariposa 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Merced 16.8 10.8
County Modoc 16.8 10.8
County Mono 16.8 10.8
County Monterey 16.8 10.8
County Napa 10.8 10.8

County Nevada 16.8 10.8
County Orange 19.8 14.7
County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8
County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8
County Placer- 16.8 10.8
County Plumas 16.8 10.8
County Riverside- 16.8 10.8
County Riverside-

19.8 14.7
County Riverside-Salton 14.6 11
County Riverside-South 19.8 14.7
County Sacramento 15 10
County San Benito 16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-

16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-

19.8 14.7
County San Diego 16.8 10.8
County San Francisco 10.8 10.8
County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
County San Luis Obispo 13 13
County San Mateo 10.8 10.8
County Santa Barbara-

8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara-

8.3 8.3
County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8
County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8
County Shasta 16.8 10.8
County Sierra 16.8 10.8
County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8
County Solano- 15 10
County Solano-San 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8
County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8
County Sutter 16.8 10.8
County Tehama 16.8 10.8
County Trinity 16.8 10.8
County Tulare 16.8 10.8
County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
County Ventura 16.8 10.8
County Yolo 15 10
County Yuba 16.8 10.8
Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8

Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Mininum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Attachment B
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.

Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.

Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.

Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.

Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.

Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
NumberWood

1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces
NumberWood

48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
158.37

79.82 tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
131.84

78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
127.15

65.80 tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2021

0.1713

1.8242

1.1662

2.4000e-
003

0.4169

0.0817

0.4986

0.1795

0.0754

0.2549

0.0000
213.1969
213.1969

0.0601

0.0000
214.6993
2022

0.6904

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
6 1,721.682
6 0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
7 2023

0.6148

3.3649

5.6747

0.0178

1.1963

0.0996

1.2959

0.3203

0.0935

0.4138

0.0000
1,627.529
5 1,627.529
5 0.1185

0.0000
1,630.492
5 2024

4.1619

0.1335

0.2810

5.9000e-
004

0.0325

6.4700e-
003

0.0390

8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147

0.0000

52.9078

52.9078

8.0200e-
003

0.0000

53.1082
Maximum

4.1619

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
6 1,721.682
6 0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
7 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2021

0.1713

1.8242

1.1662

2.4000e-
003

0.4169

0.0817

0.4986

0.1795

0.0754

0.2549

0.0000
213.1967
213.1967

0.0601

0.0000
214.6991
2022

0.6904

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
3 1,721.682
3 0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
3 2023

0.6148

3.3648

5.6747

0.0178

1.1963

0.0996

1.2959

0.3203

0.0935

0.4138

0.0000
1,627.529
1 1,627.529
1 0.1185

0.0000
1,630.492
1 2024

4.1619

0.1335

0.2810

5.9000e-
004

0.0325

6.4700e-
003

0.0390

8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147

0.0000

52.9077

52.9077

8.0200e-
003

0.0000

53.1082
Maximum

4.1619

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
3 1,721.682
3 0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
3 Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Quarter
Start Date
End Date
Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 9-1-2021
11-30-2021

1.4103

1.4103
2 12-1-2021
2-28-2022

1.3613

1.3613
3 3-1-2022
5-31-2022

1.1985

1.1985
4 6-1-2022
8-31-2022

1.1921

1.1921
5 9-1-2022
11-30-2022

1.1918

1.1918
6 12-1-2022
2-28-2023

1.0774

1.0774
7 3-1-2023
5-31-2023

1.0320

1.0320
8 6-1-2023
8-31-2023

1.0260

1.0260
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303

0.0468
3,913.283
3 Mobile

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 Waste

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
207.8079

0.0000
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Water

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

29.1632
556.6420
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Total

6.8692

9.5223

30.3407

0.0914

7.7979

0.2260

8.0240

2.0895

0.2219

2.3114
236.9712
12,294.18
07 12,531.15
19 15.7904

0.1260
12,963.47
51 Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023
11-30-2023

1.0265

1.0265
10 12-1-2023
2-29-2024

2.8857

2.8857
11 3-1-2024
5-31-2024

1.6207

1.6207
Highest

2.8857

2.8857
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303

0.0468
3,913.283
3 Mobile

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 Waste

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
207.8079

0.0000
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Water

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

29.1632
556.6420
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Total

6.8692

9.5223

30.3407

0.0914

7.7979

0.2260

8.0240

2.0895

0.2219

2.3114
236.9712
12,294.18
07 12,531.15
19 15.7904

0.1260
12,963.47
51 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 Demolition
Demolition
9/1/2021
10/12/2021
5 30
2 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
10/13/2021
11/9/2021
5 20
3 Grading
Grading
11/10/2021
1/11/2022
5 45
4 Building Construction
Building Construction
1/12/2022
12/12/2023
5 500
5 Paving
Paving
12/13/2023
1/30/2024
5 35
6 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
1/31/2024
3/19/2024
5 35
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating
±
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Demolition
Excavators
3 8.00
158

0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 8.00
97 0.37
Grading
Excavators
2 8.00
158

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Scrapers
2 8.00
367

0.48 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 8.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes
1 7.00
231

0.29 Building Construction
Forklifts
3 8.00
89 0.20
Building Construction
Generator Sets
1 8.00
84 0.74
Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 7.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Welders
1 8.00
46 0.45
Paving
Pavers
2 8.00
130

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132

0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 8.00
80 0.38
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM