staff report - planned development permit to construct 65

214 M R 9511111111 222222222R 9595R 95R 954 M M14 M 14 M R 95R 9514 M14 M R 95R 95

atrcia Avenueatrcia AvenuePaPa

Patr

Patrrc

ia S

treet

rcia

Stre

et

211 22214 M 4 M R 95R 95 211 222R 95R 9511 14 M14 M R 95R 95

ttSt

ree

Stre

a SS

rr rrrrrrr rr

aa

5 5

54

Proj. No.:

Print Date:

1196 PATRICIA AVE, SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065

PATRICIA PARC APARTMENTS

143 T

RIUN

FO C

ANYO

N RD

., STE

. 225

-E., W

ESTL

AKE

VILL

AGE,

CA

9136

1

1196

PAT

RICI

A AV

ENUE

ASS

OCIA

TES,

LLC

AP# 632-0-091-375632-0-091-395

A DEVELOPMENT FOR:

3/20/17 11:34:01 AM

A-6

TRASH ENCLOSURE - PLAN AND ELEVATIONS20-160205

55

.,., ' -,.,

PATRICIA PARC APARTMENTS CITY OF SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA

REVISED TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY

~a,b,,eh

•

Moun1.11t1G:Jt t' Pl .t1.t

II,

f LG~,\, ; ':' ,:> /.1-'

···."

~ BG1 lori1 St.t:J\. l S.,.,.food U

T1 ; : fl KfC W~ ~I "

' .. 1 .,, l l (•~A:·,~· ,A'it' f l r~t-'1·.;• i< (,,1 ·

1 l Lf,.,An.J 11_•:.,At,• Elr • I\/ ,f .. i1\ ,i LU ; ;,nud .:.i·.i f.l:1'..,,\ 1-;i !t. A,1.·

TolC:O II ii ~ t'= r I o ,)11'J ~3Arr>

\,:

,, ti :i Tlte- 11.::1

;.,_,:: 1'1 •'·• " ;. Ji' ·:J/.\

• Co!QltyA~nls.

January 27, 2017

Prepared For:

1196 Patricia Avenue Associates, LLC c/o ltule Real Estate Group 143 Triunfo Canyon Road, Suite 225-E Westlake Village, CA 91361

ti ;:;. ) ~ rea.E• Office P1ll'1 6 0 & Shp Ctnl(Y l:.'

. ,,. Rn ti' Randi Apall'nl!fltS j

;:

f lndiJ11 I U-,.~

II

Sw A;.110 Sedy • m

G<ii."4Amt!rie¥1Ttls!l 1I .~ ii Sul,w.,y :a

PopE)'tsS n l ¢ut aK,tdl t'I

0 11! , ,, \ .l

ATE #16067

ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS I 00 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110-1686 • (805) 687-4418 • FAX (805) 682-8509

56

ATTACHMENT B

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Street Network ................................................ . Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

IMPACT CRITERIA ..................... . ......... ....... ...... ........ . 8

PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS .................. .. ........ ..... .... 8 Project Trip Generation ..... . . .. .... .. . ..... ... ........... ........ . 8 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Existing + Project Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Project Site Access and Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS ...... ... ... ....... .. ...... ..... 12 Transportation Plans and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 General Plan Buildout Intersection Levels of Service ..................... 12

SUMMARY .......................... ......... ... . . .......... . .. .... 16

REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED ....... .. ........ ... .... ..... . . . 17

TECHNICAL APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

57

Table 1 Table 2

Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6

Table 7 Table 8

Figure 1 Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8

Figure 9

LIST OF TABLES

Existing Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Project Weekday Trip Generation .......... . .................... 8 Existing + Project A.M. Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service .... ... 9 Existing + Project P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . 9 General Plan Buildout Intersection Levels of Service - A.M. Peak Hour .. 15 General Plan Buildout Intersection Levels of Service - P.M. Peak Hour ... 15 Summary of Intersection Levels of Service - A.M. Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . 16 Summary of Intersection Levels of Service - P.M. Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . 16

LIST OF FIGURES

Project Site location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Project Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Existing Street Network and Project Location ...................... 4 Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Existing Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Project Trip Distribution and Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Existing + Project Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 General Plan Buildout Traffic Volumes ............. . ... . ........ 13

General Plan Buildout + Project Traffic Volumes ... . ...... . ... . .. . 14

ii

58

INTRODUCTION

The following study contains an analysis of the potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with the development of the Patricia Pare Apartments. The traffic and circulation study provides information relative to Existing, Existing+ Project, General Plan Buildout and General Plan Buildout + Project traffic conditions in the vicinity of the project site. The roadways and intersections analyzed in the study were determined based on scoping information provided by City staff.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed apartment development is to be located at 1196 Patricia Avenue south of Los Angeles Avenue. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project site within the City of Simi Valley. The project is proposing to redevelop a 2.10 acres site currently occupied by a landscaping business with a 65 unit apartment project. Access to the project site would be provided via a single driveway connection to Patricia Avenue. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan for the project.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Street Network

The project study area is served by a network of arterial streets and collector streets, as illustrated in Figure 3. The following text provides a brief discussion of the primary components of the study-area street network.

Los Angeles Avenue classified as a major arterial street, consists of two separate segments in the Simi Valley area. The westerly segment begins at the State Route 118 freeway in the City of Moorpark and extends easterly to Easy Street, which continues to Madera Road. The easterly segment begins at Madera Road south of Easy Street and runs easterly through the City of Simi Valley. Los Angeles Avenue serves commercial and residential land uses in the studyarea.

First Street, is a 4- to 6-lane north-south roadway with left-turn channelization at major intersections in the vicinity of the project area. First Street extends southerly from Simi Town Center Way to the urban boundary and becomes Long Canyon Road. First Street serves commercial and residential land uses in the study-area. Within the project vicinity, First Street is signalized at Los Angeles Avenue.

Patricia Pare Apartments

Traffic and Circulation Study

Associated Transportation Engineers

January 27, 2017

59

-I " ~ ~ ~:::i. ;:;· Q. 0, 0,

::, " C. 0,

n n :;· )> Cl -a ~~ 0, -

"'· 3 0 "' ::, ::, V, ;;;-

i= C. -<

N

~ g .;· co C.

:;i 0,

~ -a

- o 0, ~

~ §: ~ a·

-< ::, N m ...... ::,

- °" N 3 " 0 "' ~"' ...... ;;;

Mobil

i:

::ind Mvc.

TI

" "'

a!, Office Depot Mountain G;:>te Ploza

~ Der: v:Jit ~b~:

4/~-'Sc,St

Citrus GrcveP:1rk

y Tl Chose Bnnk Ch~y's Simi We.st S1arbuck::;

f ~

tt f Barton's Steok & Sea food t1

!! .. Big 5 Sporting

Goods -Sim I Valley

~ E LDs Ang,::,les Ave E Los Angeles Ave

$,0

·a ~ '£}

8 ~~:~i~~~:~~:~

~ Colony Apartments

Walnut Gro,.:e Ln

~

A ssoc1ATED

TRANSPORTATION

E NGINEERS

Vlillowbre,ok Park

Mi Dl)ron;1lo Sor

E Los Anoele::; Ave

. ~ " ~ ThC Hot

£Q

Patricia ,:\ve

P(1Lf Cl,-,. ,ive

i !1. Mcl>onold's JI KFC Wendy's VI

6 -E LOS Ange:es A~·e

E Los Ange~s iwe - · E Los Anueles /we E Lo, Anucles ,\,,e TocoBoll Tl ::::

P..itnC1E1 Ave

.!.I - ~ ~ FedEx Office Print Bi ~ & Ship Center _

Patric:a A"e

~ ~ ~ ~ a a !'.? en ~ -2! Rose V)

Pn11 !c:;a A1,·e

• Ri11N Ranch Apartments

PROJECT SITE LOCATION

{J, -c

~ ~

S'

§ :,

e:1

r. B ~ ~

T1 Tico·~ fAcx1c:in J:.ood

E Lo& Anoeles Al'e gt -

~ lndion Hawolf

fl

µJt1(c:.C1A'1C

~ ~

I. Lo~ /\11geles /we

St:1r Auto Body •

Grand American Tires

... ti ~ - IQ

Subway- et:

Loulsia~~Jlc1,~ N "' u.

Pr1tricraAve

Smart & Flnol Extra! )!

oa:tn:1QA,·1;: ~ ~ r; :i::, 0.

E Lost.

Sm,

H<? 1f,'J00cl St H2·1~"ood Si Home c are Phormc1cy ~ !I .

Hefwo,

~ N

NOTTO SCALE

FI GURE

EKM - ATEi/16067

60

I

---"

' ... '•

/ \.

\/

_\.<'···· ...

Pa

tricia P

are Apartm

ents T

raffic and C

ircula

tion

Study

L \

[

1 I I 1 3

·.-·::,:,~..:

!;l i

. l

, 1:.

! " I

I I I I

I I I I

(t-

' ' ; I i •

..., 1

, :;;:

" z H

'! li ::i 1~ 0

..

' w

I-

lie u

j <

is: I-

0..

<(

w

(.) (.)

0:

z is:

0 (.) :5

Q

0

:

~

_J

w ~

::J <..J L

L

8 ~ 0 0 V

)

<( z :s 0.. L

U

IV)

u LU

~ 0..

z 0 ~ 0 0..

V)

z i',2 I-

" "' 0 "' i ~ ::E ~

ffi 2'. G

z w

Associated T

ran

spo

rtatio

n E

ngineers January 27, 2

01

7

61

Pa

tricia P

are Ap

artm

en

ts T

raffic and C

ircula

tion

Study

Erringer R

oad

Q)

:::::i C

Q

) >

<

( V

l Q

)

Q)

b.Q

C

<(

Vl

0 _

J G

alt S

treet

Du

nca

n S

treet

Hu

bb

ard

Street

Willia

ms S

treet

N P

atricia Street

First S

treet

4

~ en --IIIIIJ

..-Z

~

b z

z 0 I-<(

u 0 _J

I-u LU

0 0::: Cl..

0 z <( ~

~

0 s I-LU

z I-LU

L

U

~

I-V)

(.J z I-V

)

>< L

U

z 0

!3 ~ ~

2 el

0 V

'l 2

o z

G

~

;;i z

<( I-

UJ

Associated T

ransportation Engineers

January 27, 201 7

62

Erringer Road, is a 4-lane north-south roadway with left-turn channelization at major intersections in the vicinity of the project area. Erringer Road extends northerly from Sunnydale Avenue to the City's northern urban boundary. Erringer Road serves commercial and residential land uses in the study-area. Within the project vicinity, Erringer Road is signalized at Los Angeles Avenue.

Patricia Avenue, is a 2-lane east-west roadway in the vicinity of the project area. Patricia Avenue extends southerly from Los Angeles Avenue to Williams Street. Patricia Avenue serves commercial and residential land uses in the study-area. Within the project vicinity, Patricia Avenue is signalized at Los Angeles Avenue.

Intersection Levels of Service

Because traffic flow on urban arterials is most restricted at intersections, a detailed analysis of traffic flow must examine the operating conditions of critical intersections during peak flow periods. "Levels of Service" (LOS) A through Fare used to rate intersection operations, with LOS A indicating very good operations and LOS F indicating poor operations (more complete definitions of levels of service are contained in the Technical Appendix).

The existing lane geometry and traffic controls are illustrated on Figure 4. Existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour turning volumes for the study-area intersections are shown on Figure 5. The peak hour turning volumes were collected by ATE in August of 2016 in conjunction with this study.

Levels of service for the signalized intersections were calculated using the Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) methodology required by the City of Simi Valley. The Technical Appendix contains the level of service calculation worksheets for the study-area intersections. Table1 lists the type of traffic control and the existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour levels of service for each of the intersections analyzed.

Table 1 Existing Intersection Levels of Service

A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour

Intersection Control Type V/C LOS V/C LOS

Los Angeles Avenue/First Street Signal 0.59 LOS A 0.63 LOS B

Los Angeles Avenue/Patri cia Street Signal 0.44 LOS A 0.48 LOS A

Los Angeles Avenue/Erringer Road Signal 0.52 LOS A 0.57 LOSA

The data presented in Table 1 indicate that all of the signalized study-area intersections currently operate at LOS A or B or better during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods.


Traffic and Circulation Study 5 Associated Transportation Engineers

January 27, 201 7

63

Erringer R

oad ---------------~

rt')

,1----=

----~

------

Pa

tricia P

are Apartm

ents T

raffic a

nd Circu

latio

n S

tudy

0)

:::::, C

0

)

< V

) 0

)

0)

C

<(

V)

0 ....J G

alt Street

Duncan Street

Hubbard Street

William

s Street

N Patricia Street

First Street

6

_)Hf-Ercinger R

oad I

_J --t ~ -{++L.

Patricia Street I

J T

IN]

~ en ..,

z~ I-0 z

C

0 "fj Q

)

~

.'!l c

E

Q)

-0

E

Q)

0 .!::!

Q)

"'iii lJ

C

Q)

bO

C

vi "'

0 ...J

z =

LU

+

lJ L

U

...J J_

1r -'-

-~ C

! ittt-II ~

C

<

.3 +

-'-

~ -I ~ttt-II

111 ~ .3

w ~

:J (.J u..

....J

0 a:::: 1

-z 0 u u u.. u..

~ l-o z <(

~ 1

-W

J

~

0 WJ

(.J W

J z <

( ....J

(.J z I-C

J)

>< W

J

z 0

" "' 0 "' iii '< ~

~

~ 8

~ ffiw

'< 2

0 V

)

z 0

z -

~ ~

!i <

( I-

w

Associated T

ran

spo

rtatio

n E

ngineers Jan

ua

ry 27

, 20

17

64

("(') Erringer R

oad

Q)

:, C

Q

)

>

<(

<J)

Q)

Q)

0.0 C

<

( <

J)

0 .....J G

alt Street

Duncan Street

Hubbard Street

William

s Street

----<

Nlk

-~

.---l

atnc1a Street

First Street ---------------------1

.-i-:-..:..:...;:....:....~--=

-:....:....---------

Patricia Pare Apartm

ents T

raffic and Circulation Study

7

""' "" 0

Nst~

!:. NCO

"'C

:0"1

"'" ~

J'Tl

14

1(8

7)_

J 6

64

(72

8)-

35

9(3

33

)-,

~

N

" c:o a

,-cr,

"'"'"' -"'-"1

0sl"

"~"'

J'Tl

11

2(4

2)_

J 2

0(7

)-

13

3(8

6)-,

IN]

"1

"1

0

~ ~c:o

~!::::.~

~ "'~

"""'"" N

a,~

J'Tl

35

6(1

24

)_J

67

4(4

52

)-4

83

(42

4)-,

R

~

<{

0 en ..,.

zf,2 I-0 z Q

J

E

::,

0 > :i 0

I ~

rd Q

J a..

i 0.:

i i 0

X

z X

x

UJ

(J

X

UJ

J -'

L(9

2)1

14

-(7

57

)64

1

r<2

ni1

n

1 ir ;;,a

,R

"'"'"' s::!:.s ""'~

~"'"' "'"'"'

L(1

6)3

0

-(18

)22

r<

12

4J1

39

1lr

~R~

""~"' ~

,-...---"' O

st<

'"l c:o

~~

~

N

L(2

46

)29

8

-(75

5)4

66

r<

23

oJ8

3

1lr

ii)'(ori=," ~~"' """'---"' "'"'"' "''° "''°

LI.J a,:'. ::J (.J L

L

CJ)

UJ

~

::J ....J

0 >

u LL

L

L

~ 1-

(.J z 1-

r.Jl

>< U

J

z 0

" "' 0 "' ;;;; ~ ::E ~

8 ~ '<

2 el

0 V

I z

O

2 6

Vl

~

z <

I-LI.J

Associated T


January 27

, 20

17

65

IMPACT CRITERIA

The City considers LOS C acceptable for signalized intersections, with mitigations required for operations at LOS "D" or worse.

PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

The following section evaluates the project-specific impacts related to the proposed Patricia Pare Apartments development based on the City of Simi Valley impact criteria.

Project Trip Generation

Trip generation estimates for the proposed apartment development were calculated based on rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 9111 Edition. 1

This manual is a standard reference used by jurisdictions throughout the United States and is based on trip generation studies conducted at numerous locations in areas of various populations. Trip generation estimates were also developed for the existing landscaping business which currently occupies the subject property based on operational data. The landscaping business employees 30 people and operates between the hours of 6:30 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. five days a week. The business maintains a fleet of 15 company vehicles. Table 2 summaries the estimated average daily, A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation for the proposed apartment development and the existing landscaping business.

Table 2 Project Weekday Trip Generation

A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour

Land Use Size ADT Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total

Pro12osed Use: Apartment 65 units 432 7 26 33 26 14 4

Existing Use: Landscaping 30 employees 60 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 vehicle fleet 30 Q Q Q Q Q Q 90 0 0 0 0 0 0

Net Change: 342 +7 +26 +33 +26 +14 +40

Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Ninth Edition, 2012.



January 27, 2017

66

The data presented in Table 2 indicate that the apartment project would generate 432 average daily trips, 33 A.M. and 40 P.M. peak hour trips. The existing landscaping business generates a total of 90 average daily trips, 0 A.M. and O P.M. peak hour trips. The project would result in a net increase of 342 average daily trips, 33 A.M. and 40 P.M. peak hour trips.

Project Trip Distribution and Assignment

Figure 6 i I lustrates the distribution pattern used to assign the trips associated with the proposed project, as derived from the City's traffic model. Once distributed, the traffic generated by the project was assigned to the study-area intersections as illustrated on Figure 6.

Existing + Project Intersection Levels of Service

Intersection levels of service for the study-area intersections were calculated assuming the existing+ project traffic volumes shown on Figure 7. (LOS worksheets contained in Technical Appendix). Tables 3 and 4 list the results of the calculations and existing + project level of service ratings.

Table 3 Existing + Project A.M. Peak Hour Weekday Intersection Levels of Service

Existing Existing + Project Impact?

Intersection Control Type V/C LOS V/C LOS NO

Los Angeles Avenue/First Street Signal 0.59 LOS A 0.59 LOS A NO

Los Angeles Avenue/Patricia Street Signal 0.44 LOS A 0.45 LOSA NO

Los Angeles Avenue/Erringer Road Signal 0.52 LOS A 0.52 LOSA NO

Table 4 Existing + Project P.M. Peak Hour Weekday Intersection Levels of Service

Intersection

Los Angeles Avenue/First Street

Los Angeles Avenue/Patricia Street

Los Angeles Avenue/Erringer Road



Control Type

Signal

Signal

Signal

Existing

V/C LOS

0.63 LOS B

0.48 LOSA

0.57 LOS A

9

Existing + Project Impact?

V/C LOS NO

0.63 LOS B NO

0.49 LOS A NO

0.57 LOS A NO


January 27, 2017

67

Pa

tricia P

are Apartm

ents T

raffic and C

ircula

tion

Study

lJ z~

-L

J.J

0

. t-~

0

. zo

Ow

l.(') IU

<

J)

a; ~

C

a;

~ Vl

a; a;

C

<(

Vl

0 -l G

alt Street

Duncan Street

Hubbard Street

~

William

s Street

[NJ

First Street ~

10

.,., § j I L

_

J

4(2)--,

'° "' j IL

_J

1(0

)-

'

"' 0 ~!::

!:, :!,~

j I L

10

(3)-'

-'

~ 0 Cl)

.,. z

~ b z

Q)

E

::,

0 >

Q)

:i bO

0 !9

I C

Q

)

~

u ro

ID Q

) ii.

ii.

i C

0

0.: '§

i .n

·.;

$ <

I)

0

0 20 z w

><

0 (.J

>< w

J

~ L

-r<

oJ1

1lr

~~

;:::-N

;:.";::'

L(8

)4

-(1)1

r<

11J9

1lr 0: "

L(1

)3

-r

1lr ~

w

0::: :::)

lJ LI.. 1

-z w

~

z CJ (/)

(/)

<(

0 z <(

z 0 I:)

a:i ~

1-

(/)

0 0.. ~

1-

u w

0 ~ 0..

" '° 0 '° i '< ~

1:S

Associated T

ran

spo

rtatio

n Eng

ineers

January 27

, 20

17

68

Erringer R

oad -----------------lr

t"),1

-----=

=-----------

Pa

tricia P

are Apartm

ents T

raffic and C

ircula

tion

Study

Q)

::i C

Q

)

< V

) Q

)

Q)

C

<(

V)

0 ....J G

alt S

treet

Du

nca

n S

treet

Hu

bb

ard

Street

Willia

ms S

treet

N

atnc1a Street

First S

treet

11

00

>

t-,.. tO

0 N

'S!"~

~N

OC

> l.l"l

tO r,")

~b

e

Jjl

141(87) _J

66

4(7

28

)-3

63

(33

5),

~

N

r-,.. tO

(j\

-r,"

)

'° '°

r-,.. -

a>

-r,")

0-0

b

s~

Jjl

11

2(4

2)_

J 2

1(7

)-

13

3(8

6),

f;il

(j\

l.l"l ~

~

~o

:i N

f',..N

;:::-R

~

l.l"l '°

'SI" N

a,~

J!L

366(127) _J 6

74

(45

2)-

48

3(4

24

),

R

~

<I'. 0 U

)

Zf? b z a.> E

:,

0 >

::i 0 I .:.!. ro a.>

a..

:i. 0.:

:i. i 0

>< z

>< w

x

lJ ><

w

J _,

L(9

2)1

14

-(7

57

)64

1

,<2

nJ1

78

1lr

RN

co .O

'Sl"N

.::..~.::.. a> O

N

~r,")l.l"l

M

O>

N

L(2

4)3

4

-(19

)23

,<

14

1J1

48

1lr

o,Rco

'SI"~

<!>

~

r--..~

~~o

O'S

l"Ll"l

o:i~

~

~N

~

L(2

47

J30

1

-(75

5)4

66

,<

23

oJ8

3

1lr

inR;;:;-

~ ~

(j\

'SI"

'°~

~

~.o

r,") -0

1.l"l

.OtO

l.l"l tO

w ~

:)

lJ L

L

Cf)

UJ

~

::) .....J

0 >

u u.. u..

~ I-Iu UJ

0 ~ c.. +

CJ z Ir.fl

X

UJ

" "' 0 "' :;;; ~ :E ~

Associated T


January 27, 20

17

69

The data presented in Tables 3 and 4 indicate that the project would not generate significant impacts at the study-area intersections during weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods. The study-area intersections would continue to operate in the LOS A - B range with the addition of project-generated traffic volumes.

Project Site Access and Circulation

As illustrated in the project site plan (Figure 2), access to the Patricia Pare Apartments would be provided via a driveway on Patricia Avenue. Given the existing and future forecasted traffic volumes, the project access driveway would operate acceptably and accommodate project traffic volumes. Review of the site plan also indicates that the proposed internal circulation layout would adequately accommodate the flow of vehicular traffic on-site. The project will complete all required frontage and driveway improvements along Patricia Avenue. The ultimate configuration of the site plan including site access and frontage improvements, will be subject to final review and approval by the City of Simi Valley.

GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS

The potential cumulative traffic impacts associated with the project were assessed using traffic forecasts generated by the City's traffic model for General Plan Buildout traffic conditions. The land use data base for the traffic model assumed multi-family residential units on the project site. City staff also requested a General Plan Buildout analysis assuming that the site is vacant.

Transportation Plans and Programs

As part of the General Plan Circulation Element, the City has determined the necessary roadway sections and intersection geometrics required to accommodate buildout of the City. The City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identifies these improvements, which are funded using the Capital Improvement Fund (CIF). Monies for the CIF are obtained from traffic improvement fees required of new developments. Thus, the City has planned for the orderly implementation of a circulation system that will accommodate buildout of the City-including development of the existing land uses proposed within the eastern portion of the City (i.e. the project-study area).

General Plan Buildout Intersection Levels of Service

Figure 8 shows the General Plan Buildout volumes assuming that the site is vacant. Figure 9 illustrates the General Plan Buildout + Project traffic volumes. Tables 5 and 6 present the A.M. and P.M. peak hour intersection levels of service for the General Plan Buildout scenarios with and without project-generated traffic volumes assuming the project site is vacant. Level of service worksheets are contained in the Technical Appendix for reference.



January 27, 2017

70

Erringer R

oad -------------------!C

"')

,1

----=

----~

------

Patricia P

are Apartm

ents T

raffic and Circulation S

tudy

OJ :::, C

OJ

~ <fl

OJ OJ

C

<(

<fl

0 .....J G

alt Street

Duncan S

treet

Hubbard S

treet

William

s Street

N P

atricia Street

First Street

13

en <

t"'

''"" en

~ co

~

~ G

,\D

<t

N

t-, ~ en

~

J'jl

198(115) _J

7

33

(77

5)-

391(361)---,

~

2 " ~

0 -<

t !:'..~

~

Or<

ir<i

co

~"'

_]Tl

12

3(4

6)_

J 2

3(1

0)-

146(94)--,

IN]

N<

tN

en "'<

t N

CO

r<i LO

N CO

NC

O N

~~~

J I L

39

0(1

42

~

~

(3 (J

)

.., z

~ f-0 z Q)

E

:,

0 > :5 0

I -'<

"' Q) a..

i 0.:

i ~

0 X

z

X

UJ

x lJ

X

UJ

_J' -'

L(1

o1

)16

4

-(87

3)7

00

1(299)221

1!r

N~

R

">0

<1

" "'"'~ NLO

O

"co

o

"'"'"'

L(1

9)4

6

-(20

)29

1(157)255

1-Tr <t c

o~

"'e

nN

~

co

~

co;;:;-~ en

O">

~

"'~

L(2

71

)32

8

-(10

83

)59

7

,(25

3)1

19

UJ ~

::) (J

LJ..

(/)

w

~

::) .....J

0 >

u u.. u..

~ t-t::)

0 0 .....J

::) co z :s a.. .....J

~ w

z w

lJ

" '° 0 '° ~ f-< ~

~

1-ir 1

07

1(5

34

)-~

MN

en c

oo

~ 518(466)---,

<t "

'~

MO

O\

co

~en

"'"'

Associated T


January 27, 20

17

71

Pa

tricia P

are Apartm

ents R

ep

ort D

escrip

tion

Cf) E

rringer Road

a; :::J C

a; >

<

( <

fl a; a;

C

<(

<fl

0 .....J G

alt S

treet

Du

nca

n S

treet

Hu

bb

ard

Street

Willia

ms S

treet

N P

atricia Street

First S

treet

14

""'"' ''"

" en

~ c

o~

~ Lr)G

,' st N

"-~ e

n~

JT'L

198(115) _J

73

3(7

75

)-3

95

(36

3),

~

2 " ~

o-N

!=

:.~~

0

Ml/'l

co

~ l/'l

JT'L

12

3(4

6)_

J 2

4(1

0)-

14

6(9

4),

~

co '°"' en ll'l st N

CO

M

Lt)(o

;::-"' c

o"'

c~~

J I L

400(145>--1

~

<(

()

en ..,.

z~ I-0 z Q

)

E

:,

0 > :i 0

I ..:,t. ro Q

) a..

i 0.:

i i_

X

0 z X

w

x

(J

X

w

.5

..J

L(1

o1

)16

4

-(87

3)7

00

,<

29

9)2

22

1lr

\DR

CO

ll'lO

st N

-0~

~;:E;:: "co

o

MN

M

L(2

7)5

0

-(21

)30

,<

17

4)2

64

111 .o

en

N

~co

~

co;;:;-;:: en O

"-

~l/'l~

L(2

72

)33

1

-(10

83

)59

7

,<2

53

)11

9

1lr

LU

c:.:: :)

(.J L

L

rJ)

LU

~

::) .....J

0 >

u u.. u..

~ I-Iu LU

0 Cl::'. c...

+

I::)

0 0 .....J

::) co z :s c... .....J

~ LU

z L

U

lJ z 0

10

71

(53

4)-

;::-~N

en co

o

ow ~ =

lQtlj !.:

2

r.=i 518(466>-,

~~

!::. "'s

t en co ~

en

ll'lN

0

V')

z O

2

6 V">

~

z <(

I-L

U

Associated T


January 27, 20

17

72

Table 5 General Plan Buildout Intersection Levels of Service - A.M. Peak Hour

V/C - Level of Service

General Plan General Plan Intersection Without Project With Project Impact?

Los Angeles Avenue/First Street 0.65 - B 0.65 - B NO

Los Angeles Avenue/Patricia Street 0.48 -A 0.49 - A NO

Los Angeles Avenue/Erringer Road 0.58 -A 0.58 -A NO

Table 6 General Plan Buildout Intersection Levels of Service - P.M. Peak Hour


General Plan General Plan Intersection Without Project With Project Impact?

Los Angeles Avenue/First Street 0.66 - B 0.66 - B NO

Los Angeles Avenue/Patricia Street 0.58 -A 0.59 - A NO

Los Angeles Avenue/Erringer Road 0.70 - B 0.70 - B NO

Tables 5 and 6 show that the study-area intersections are forecast to operate at LOS B or better during the peak hour periods with General Plan Buildout volumes, including the proposed Patricia Pare Apartments.

The proposed project is subject to the City traffic mitigation fee program, with collected fees used for the future transportation improvements required to accommodate future traffic volumes. The General Plan Buildout analysis showed that the future service levels at the studyarea intersections would be maintained at LOS B or better assuming the transportation improvements planned by the City. The City's CIP identifies these improvements and funds them via traffic fees required of new developments. The Patricia Pare Apartments would contribute to the future improvements by payment of traffic mitigation fees to offset it's cumulative traffic impacts.



January 27, 2017

73

SUMMARY

The Patricia Pare Apartments is not expected to generate significant impacts at the study-area intersections in the Existing + Project or General Plan Buildout + Project scenarios, as all locations would continue to operate acceptably in the LOS A - B range with the addition of project-generated traffic volumes. Tables 6 and 7 summarize the levels of service at the studyarea intersections.

Table 6 Summary of Intersection Levels of Service - A.M. Peak Hour

V /C - Level of Service

Intersection Existing Existing + Project General Plan General Plan + Project

Los Angeles Avenue/First Street 0.59 -A 0.59 -A 0.65 - B 0.65 - B

Los Angeles Avenue/Patricia Street 0.44-A 0.45 - A 0.48 - A 0.49 - A

Los Angeles Avenue/Erringer Road 0.52 -A 0.52 -A 0.58 -A 0.58 -A

Table 7 Summary of Intersection Levels of Service - P.M. Peak Hour

Intersection

Los Angeles Avenue/First Street

Los Angeles Avenue/Patricia Street

Los Angeles Avenue/Erringer Road



Existing

0.63 - B

0.48 -A

0.57 -A


Existing + Project

0.63 - B

0.49 - A

0.57 -A

•••

16

General Plan General Plan + Project

0.66 - B 0.66 - B

0.58 -A 0.59 -A

0.70 - B 0.70 - B


January 27, 2017

74

REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED


Scott A. Schell, AICP, PTP, Principal Planner Darryl F. Nelson, PTP, Senior Transportation Planner Erica K. Monson, Traffic Technician I

Persons Contacted

Jim Brunner, City of Simi Valley

Written Material

Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, Transportation Circular#212, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, 1980.

Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Ninth Edition, 2012.



January 27, 2017

75

TECHNICAL APPENDIX

CONTENTS:

LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS

INTERSECTION TRAFFIC COUNT VOLUMES

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS

Reference 1 - Los Angeles Avenue/First Street Reference 2 - Los Angeles Avenue/Patricia Avenue Reference 2 - Los Angeles Avenue/Erringer Road



January 27, 2017

76

LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS

77

A < 10.0

B 10.1 - 20.0

C 20.1 - 35.0

D 35.1 - 55 .0

E 55.1 - 80.0

F > 80.0

Signalized Intersection !Level of Service Definitions

< 0.60

0.61 - 0.70

0.71 - 0.80

0.81 - 0.90

0.91 - 1.00

> 1.00

Good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causin hi her levels of dela .

Only fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both, result in higher cycle lengths. Cycle lengths may fail to serve queued vehicles, and overflow occurs. Number of vehicles stopped is significant, though many still pass through intersection without sto in .

Congestion becomes more noticeable. Unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths and high vie ratios result in longer delays. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual c cle failures are noticeable.

High delay values indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths and hi h vie ratios. Individual c cle failures are fre uent

Considered unacceptable for most drivers, this level occurs when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of lane groups, resulting in many individual cycle failures . Poor progression and long cycle len ths ma also contribute to hi h dela levels.

a Average control delay per vehicle in seconds.

Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions

The HCM 1 uses control delay to determine the level of service at unsignal ized intersections. Control delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced at the control device ahd the travel time that would occur in the absence of the traffic control device. Control delay includes deceleration from free flow speed, queue move-up time, stopped delay and acceleration back to free flow speed.

A < 10.0

B 10.1 - 15.0

C 15.1 - 25 .0

D 25.1 - 35.0

E 35.1 - 50.0

F > 50.0

Highway Capacity Manual, National Research Board, 2000

~ Associated Transportation Engineers ~ 100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara (805) 687-4418

78

DISCUSSIO N OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU)

The ability of a roadway to carry traffic is referred to as capacity. The capacity is us·ually less at intersections because traffic flows continuously between them and only during the green phase at them. Capacity at intersections is best defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour of green. The technique used to compare the volumes and capacity of an intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). ICU or volume-tocapacity ratio, usually expressed as a percentage, is the proportion of an hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. If an ir:,tersection is operating at 80 percent of capacity, then 20 percent of the signal cycle is not used.

The ICU calculation assumes that an intersection is signalized and that the signal is ideally timed. Although calculating ICU for an unsignalized intersection is invalid, the presumption is that a signal can be installed and the calculation shows whether the geometrics are capable of accommodating the expected volumes. It is possible to have an ICU well below 100 percent, yet have severe traffic congestion. This would occur if one or more movements is not getting sufficient time to satisfy its demand, and excess time exists on other movements. This is an operational problem which should be addressed.

Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width. However, standard lanes have approximately the same capacity whether they are 11 or 14 feet wide. Data collected by Kunzman Associates indicates a typical lane, whether a through-lane or a left-turn lane, has a capacity of approximately 1,700 vehicles per hour, with nearly all locations showing a capacity greater than 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane. This finding is published in the August, 1978 issue of ITE lournal in the article entitled, "Another Look at Signalized Intersection Capacity" by William Kunzman. For this study, a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane will be assumed for left-turn, through, and right-turn lanes as per City policy.

The yellow time can either be assumed to be completely used and no penalty applied, or it can be assumed to be only partially usable. Total yellow time accounts for less than 1 0 percent of a cycle, and a penalty of up to five percent is reasonable. On the other hand, during peak hour traffic operation, the yellow times are nearly completely used. In this study, no penalty will be applied for the yellow because the capacities have been assumed to be only 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane when in general they are 1,700-1,800 vehicles per hour per lane.

The ICU technique is an ideal tool to quantify existing as well as future intersection operations. The impact of adding a lane can be quickly determined by examining the effect the lane has on the intersection capacity utilization.

Source: Oxnard Airport Business Park Traffic Study, Kunzman Assoc., City of Oxnard, 1985.

79

INTERSECTION TRAFFIC COUNT VOLUMES

80

Dale: 8/24/2016

Day: Wednesday

m

A ~ ii:

Los Angeles Ave

AM. NOON PM

2 G GJ 15631.J-2 '.GiIJ. GJ G-. 0 0[D0~

AM :NOON PM

CountPerfod.s Start End

JruM re;ai~ l}{J@l!Jlir §l!.llmmiallllf Prepared by:

~~~ National Data & Surveying Services

First St and Los Angeles Ave, Simi Valley

Pea~ Hour Summary

Project#: 16-5540-002

Lanes ~ 2

AMG El G City; Simi Valley

NODNG GJ 8 ~NOON AM Peak Hour 730AM

NOON Peak Hour

PM G B G PM Peak Hour 445PM

AM NOON PM

G GJ G G G G 3

~ BG] G · :;l

AM NOON PM

n. ·~ ·t. -,.. .AM G G G. I 246 J Al(,

AM 7:00AM 9:00AM .NOON8 8 ·0 G ·NOON

NOON NONE NONE B ·. J -~3·-:r 1~6d EJ ~M ' PM

PM 4:00PM 6:00PM 2 . 3· 1·· Larie.s

Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg

81

Date: 8/24/2016

Day: Wednesday

Los Angeles Ave

Co\Jlll Perlodsc Start End

AM 7:00AM 9:00AM

NOON NONE NONE

PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM

Total Ins & Outs

Klf'M ll»eaill«: IKJ(D)l!JJIJ" §llJJmliil1liillillf Prepared by:

NI)~ National Data & Surveying Services

Patricia St and Los Angeles Ave , Simi Valley

-Peale H,iiur sumni~!Y: -;,.,,;,:-,-:,r.;;

Projecl#: 16-5540-001

Lifri e~ - o:5 .. , il:5 · -.-1 ·-- -

U) -~.[~~J[;]l·:~J -f~-~ City: Simi Valley

I NDPN [~J GJ [o ---, PM~[~l~ . I 271 I

1r

AM Peak Hour 745AM

NOON Peak Hour

PM PM Peak Hour 415PM

NQON -- -~M

_ G[~J-0 °

:.-1~096r 8 --_ £i~ -~__}~ ;{

Total Volume Per Leg

AM NOON PM

82

K1f'IMI !Pieailk< IHl@l\JJJr §lUlm Miallilf Prepared by:

~~~ National Data & Surveying Services

Erring er Rd and Los Angeles Ave , Simi Valley

Peak Hour Surrimary i--..,..-,;-:rc=="" -::...-,,,..,...,.,.,.-....,,.,=-1

Date: 8/24/2016 Project#: 16-5540-003

Day: Wednesday

'O 0:: ,._ Q)

CJ C

~

Los Angeles Ave

AM NOON . PM

B ·G8¢:J Gfu~J

3 GJGJG..+ 0 GGJ ·G ~

AM. NOON PM

Count Periods Start End

Laries. 1 ·

AMGD NOON8

.PMG

~ --[\M

I 993 ,.

AM 7:00AM 9:00AM NMN,[:Q NOON NONE NONE I r-PM 1024

PM 4:00PM 6:00 PM

City: 2 1

G 0 -~N~

Simi Valley

GJ GJ ~NOON AM Peak Hour 730AM

NOON Peak Hour

B G ~ PM PM Peak Hour 445PM

IS .·11 AM NOON PM

.G GJ G +-G GJ G 3

Signalized J-G 8 G --

tjG-EJ B . AU, N!)ON -PM .. t · ... ,.

. .. .

-l_m I: l;s~l.-:G AM .

GJ 8 : GJNOON

I ~7; .I · , ~~1 ,·a·PM -

2: ~ 0 lan~s

Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg

. . ·.-_. .: 2114 .... :, . ' ··. ·· . : -.. _ ....

. Q .. ;-.. •.

83

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS

Reference 1 - Los Angeles Avenue/First Street Reference 2 - Los Angeles Avenue/Patricia Avenue Reference 3 - Los Angeles Avenue/Erringer Road

84

PATRICIA PARC APARTMENTS (#'16067) REF: 01 AM

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET

COUNT DATE: 08/24/2016

TIME PERIOD: A,M, PEAK HOUR

N/S STREET: FIRST STREET

E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES A VENUE

CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R

(A) EXISTING: 230 755 246 124 452 424 415 616 93 141 963 241

(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 10

(C) CUMULATIVE: 150 1061 213 233 765 473 692 885 56 287 1182 510

GEOMETRICS

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL TTT R LL TT R LL TTR LL TTT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS

SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)

SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING+ PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (CJ

SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES (B + C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS

MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO VIC RATIOS

MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

NBL 2 3600 230 230 0.064 * 0.064 * NBT 3 5400 755 755 0.140 0.140

NBR 1 1800 246 247 0.137 0.137

SBL 2 3600 124 12 7 0.034 0.035

SBT 2 3600 452 452 0.126 0.126

SBR 1 1800 424 424 0.236 * 0.236 *

EBL 2 3600 415 415 0.115 * 0.115 * EBT 2 3600 616 617 0.197 0.197

EBR 0 0 93 93 -

WBL 2 3600 141 144 0.039 0.040

WBT 3 5400 963 967 0.178 * 0.179 * WBR 1 1800 241 251 0.134 0.139

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0,59 0.59

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A

NOTES:

Printed: 09/07/16

85

PATRICIA PARC APARTMENTS (#16067) REF: 01 PM



TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAi( HOUR




TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY



(A) EXISTING: 83 466 298 356 674 483 563 882 56 280 713 213

(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 3 10 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 6

(C) CUMULATIVE: 106 659 239 597 1085 640 569 1391 74 344 1052 439

GEOMETRICS


LANE GEOMETRICS LL TTT R LL TT R LL TTR LL TTT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS


SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)

SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C)

SCENARI04 = CUMULATIVE+ PROJECTVOLUMES(B+C)


MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS


NBL 2 3600 83 83 0.023 * 0.023 * NBT 3 5400 466 466 0.086 0.086

NBR 1 1800 298 301 0.166 0.167

SBL 2 3600 356 366 0.099 0.102

SBT 2 3600 674 674 0.187 0.187

SBR 1 1800 483 483 0.268 * 0.268 *

EBL 2 3600 563 563 0.156 0.156

EBT 2 3600 882 886 0.261 * 0.262 * EBR 0 0 56 56 - -

WBL 2 3600 280 281 0.078 * 0.078 * WBT 3 5400 713 715 0.132 0.132

WBR 1 1800 213 219 0.118 0.122

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.63 0.63

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B

NOTES:

Printed: 09/07/16

86

PATRICIA PARC APARTMENTS (#16067) REF: 01 AM



TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAi< HOUR


E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE



NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R

(A) EXISTING: 230 755 246 124 452 424 415 616 93 141 963 241

(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 10

(C) CUMULATIVE: 253 1083 271 142 534 466 491 683 102 228 982 325

GEOMETRICS

NORTH BOUND SO UTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL TTT R LL TTT R LL TTTR LL TTT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS

SCENARIO 1 - EXISTING VOLUMES (A)

SCENARIO 2 - EX ISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)

SCENARIO 3 - CUMU LATIVE (C)

SCENARIO 4 - CUMU LATIVE+ PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)


MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO VIC RATIOS


NBL 2 3600 253 253 0.070 * 0.070 * NBT 3 5400 1083 1083 0.201 0.201

NBR 1 1800 271 272 0 .1 51 0.1 51

SBL 2 3600 142 145 0.039 0.040

SBT 3 5400 534 534 0.099 0.099

SBR 1 1800 466 466 0.259 * 0.259 *

EBL 2 3600 491 491 0.136 * 0.136 *

EBT 3 5400 683 684 0.145 0.146

EBR 0 0 102 102 -

WB L 2 3600 228 231 0.063 0.064

WBT 3 5400 982 986 0.182 0.183 ·'

WBR 1 1800 325 335 0.181 • 0.186 *



·1 NOTES:

Printed: 10/24/16

87



COU NT DATE : 08/24/2016

TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR







(A) EXISTI NG: 83 466 298 356 674 483 563 882 56 280 713 213

(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 3 10 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 6

(C) CUM ULATI VE: 119 597 328 390 1071 518 583 1210 99 342 854 292

GEOMETRICS


LANE GEOMETRICS LL TTT R LL TTT R LL TTTR LL TTT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS


SCENARIO 2 - EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)

SCENARIO 3 - CUMULATIVE (C)

SCENARIO 4 - CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES (B + C)


MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS


NBL 2 3600 119 119 0.033 * 0.033 * NBT 3 5400 597 597 0.111 0.111

NBR 1 1800 328 331 0.182 0.1 84

SBL 2 3600 390 400 0.108 0.111

SBT 3 5400 1071 1071 0.198 0.198

SBR 1 1800 518 518 0.288 * 0.288 *

EBL 2 3600 583 583 0.162 0.162

EBT 3 5400 1210 1214 0.242 * 0.243 * EBR 0 0 99 99

WBL 2 3600 342 343 0.095 * 0.095 *

WBT 3 5400 854 856 0.158 0.159

WBR 1 1800 292 298 0.162 0.166



NOTES:

Printed: 01 / 26/ 17

88

PATRICIA PARC APARTMENTS (#16067) REF: 02AM

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: 08/24/2 016

TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR

N/S STREET: PA TRICIA STREET





(A) EXISTING: 124 18 16 42 7 86 149 717 63 34 1096 73

(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 17 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 169 34 21 107 14 141 263 1034 83 50 1674 188

GEOMETRI CS


LANE GEOMETRICS LTR L TR L TTTR L TTTR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS


SCENARIO 2 - EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A + B) SCENARIO 3 - CUMULATIVE (C)

SCENARIO 4 - CUMULATIVE+ PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)


MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO VIC RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

NBL 0 0 124 141 -NBT 1 1800 18 19 0.088 * 0.102 * NBR 0 0 16 24 -

SBL 1 1800 42 42 0.023 0.023

SBT 1 1800 7 7 0.052 * 0.052 *

SBR 0 0 86 86 - -

EBL 1 1800 149 149 0.083 * 0.083 * EBT 3 5400 717 717 0.144 0.145

EBR 0 0 63 68 - -

WBL 1 1800 34 36 0.019 0.020

WBT 3 5400 1096 1096 0.216 * 0.216 * WBR 0 0 73 73 - -



NOTES:

Printed: 09/07/16

89


INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: 08/24/2016







(A) EXISTING: 139 22 30 112 20 133 180 1214 133 65 872 69 (B) PROJECT-A DDED: 9 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 17 8 0 0

(C) CUMULATIVE: 236 63 52 360 56 348 288 1796 120 81 1262 277

GEOMETRICS


LANE GEOMETRICS LTR L TR L TTTR L TTTR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS

SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES (B + C)


MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

NBL 0 0 139 148 -

NBT 1 1800 22 23 0.106 * 0.114 * NBR 0 0 30 34 -

SBL 1 1800 112 112 0.062 0.062

SBT 1 1800 20 21 0.085 * 0.086 * SBR 0 0 133 133 - -

EBL 1 1800 180 180 0.100 0.100

EBT 3 5400 1214 1214 0.249 * 0.253 *

EBR 0 0 133 150 - -

WBL 1 1800 65 73 0.036 * 0.041 * WBT 3 5400 872 872 0.174 0.1 74

WBR 0 0 69 69 - -



NOTES:

Printed: 09/07/16

90



COUNT DATE: 08/24/2 01 6


N/S STREET: PATRICIA STREET



TRAFFI C VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND W EST BOUND


(A) EXISTING: 124 18 16 42 7 86 149 717 63 34 1096 73

(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 17 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0

(CJ CUMULATIVE: 157 20 19 46 10 94 164 898 121 53 1342 80

GEOMETRICS


LAN E GEOMETRICS L TR LT R L TTTR L TTT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS


SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A +B)

SCENARIO 3 = CUMU LATIVE (C)

SCENARIO 4 =CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)


MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO VIC RATIOS


NBL 1 1800 157 174 0.087 • 0.097 •

NBT 1 1800 20 21 0.022 0.027

NBR 0 0 19 27 - -

SBL 0 0 46 46 - -

SBT 1 1800 10 10 0.031 0.031

SBR 1 1800 94 94 0.052 • 0.052 *

EBL 1 1800 164 164 0.091 . 0.091 •

EBT 3 5400 898 898 0.189 0.190

EBR 0 0 121 126 - -

WBL 1 1800 53 55 0.029 0.031

WBT 3 5400 1342 1342 0.249 * 0.249 •

WBR 1 1800 BO BO 0.044 0.044



NOTES:

Printed: 10/24/16

91


INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORl<SHEET

COUNT DATE: 08/24/20 16

TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR




TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND


(AJ EXISTING: 139 22 30 11 2 20 133 180 1214 133 65 872 69

(BJ PROJECT-A DDED: 9 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 17 8 0 0

(CJ CUMULATIVE: 255 29 46 123 23 146 198 1503 154 84 1110 107

GEOMETRICS


LANE GEOMETRICS L TR L TR L TITR L TIT R

TRAFFI C SCENARIOS


SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)

SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C)

SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE+ PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)


MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO VIC RATIOS


NBL 1 1800 255 264 0.142 * 0. 147 * NBT 1 1800 29 30 0.042 0.044

NBR 0 0 46 50 - -

SBL 0 0 123 123 - -SBT 1 1800 23 24 0.081 * 0.082 * SBR 1 1800 146 146 0.081 0.081

EBL 1 1800 198 198 0.110 0.110

EBT 3 5400 1503 1503 0.307 * 0.3 10 * EBR 0 0 154 171 -

WBL 1 1800 84 92 0.047 * 0.051 * WBT 3 5400 11 10 1110 0.206 0.206

WBR 1 1800 107 107 0.059 0.059



NOTES:

Printed: 10/24/16

92



TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAi( HOUR

N/S STREET: ERRINGER ROAD





(A) EXISTING: 272 757 92 87 728 333 163 439 127 138 782 95

(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 1 0 0 0

(C) CUMU LATIVE: 192 869 76 105 799 337 339 810 224 204 977 148

GEOMETRICS


LAN E GEOMETRICS LL TTR L TT R L TTTR L TTT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS

SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C)

SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE+ PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)


MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

NBL 2 3600 272 272 0.076 0.076

NBT 2 3600 757 757 0.236 * 0.236 * NBR 0 0 92 92 -

SBL 1 1800 87 87 0.048 * 0.048 * SBT 2 3600 728 728 0.202 0.202

SBR 1 1800 333 335 0.185 0.186

EBL 1 1800 163 167 0.091 * 0.093 * EBT 3 5400 439 442 0.105 0.106

EBR 0 0 127 128 - -

WBL 1 1800 138 138 0.077 0.077

WBT 3 5400 782 782 0 .1 45 * 0.145 *

WBR 1 1800 95 95 0.053 0.053



NOTES:

Printed: 09/07/16

93





EM STREET: LOS ANGELES A VENUE




(AJ EXISTING: 177 641 114 141 664 359 317 929 251 109 477 127

(BJ PROJECT-A DDED: 1 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 1 0 3 0

(CJ CUMULATIVE: 285 675 183 195 792 442 410 1484 380 217 1022 156

GEOMETRICS


LANE GEOMETRICS LL TTR L TT R L TTTR L TTT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS


SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C)



MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO VIC RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

NBL 2 3600 177 178 0.049 0.049

NBT 2 3600 641 641 0 .210 * 0.210 * NBR 0 0 114 114 -

SBL 1 1800 141 141 0.078 * 0.078 * SBT 2 3600 664 664 0.184 0.184

SBR 1 1800 359 363 0.199 0.202

EBL 1 1800 317 319 0.176 0.177

EBT 3 5400 929 930 0.219 * 0.219 * EBR 0 0 251 252 - -

WBL 1 1800 109 109 0.061 * 0.061 *

WBT 3 5400 477 480 0.088 0.089

WBR 1 1800 127 127 0.071 0.071



NOTES:

Printed: 09/07/16

94


INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORl<SHEET COUNT DATE: 08/24/2016


N/S STREET: ERRJNGER ROAD

EM/ STREET: LOS ANGELES A VENUE

CONTRO L TYPE: SIGNA L

TRAFFI C VO LU ME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND


(A) EXISTING: 272 757 92 87 728 333 163 439 127 138 782 95

(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 1 0 0 0

(C) CUMU LATIVE: 299 873 101 11 5 775 361 252 604 147 176 925 143

GEOMETRICS


LAN E GEOMETRICS LL TTR L TT R LL TTTR LL TTT R

TRAFFI C SCENARI OS

SCENARIO 1 = EX ISTI NG VOLUMES (A)

SCENARIO 2 = EX ISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C)

SCENARIO 4 = CUMU LATIVE+ PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATI ONS

MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

NBL 2 3600 299 299 0.083 0.083

NBT 2 3600 873 873 0.271 * 0.271 . NBR 0 0 101 101 -

SB L 1 1800 115 11 5 0.064 * 0.064 * SBT 2 3600 775 775 0.2 15 0.2 15

SBR 1 1800 361 363 0.20 1 0.202

EBL 2 3600 252 256 0.070 * 0.071 * EBT 3 5400 604 607 0.139 0. 140

EBR 0 0 147 148 - -

WBL 2 3600 176 176 0.049 0.049

WBT 3 5400 925 925 0. 171 . 0.171 • WBR 1 1800 143 143 0.079 0.079



N OTES:

Printed: 10/24/16

95



TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAi< HOUR






(A) EXISTING: 177 641 114 141 664 359 317 929 251 109 477 127

(B) PROJECT-A DDED: 1 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 1 0 3 0

(C) CUMULATIVE: 221 700 164 198 733 391 372 1285 300 193 864 159

GEOMETRICS


LANE GEOMETRICS LL TTR L TT R LL TTTR LL TTT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS


SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C)



MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

NBL 2 3600 221 222 0.061 0.062

NBT 2 3600 700 700 0.240 * 0.240 * NBR 0 0 164 164 - -

SBL 1 1800 198 198 0.110 * 0.110 * SBT 2 3600 733 733 0.204 0.204

SBR 1 1800 391 395 0.217 0.219

EBL 2 3600 372 374 0.103 0.104

EBT 3 5400 1285 1286 0.294 * 0.294 * EBR 0 0 300 301 - -

WBL 2 3600 193 193 0.054 * 0.054 * WBT 3 5400 864 867 0.160 0.161

WBR 1 1800 159 159 0.088 0.088



NOTES:

Printed: 10/24/16

96

Neighborhood Council Development Review

Meeting Summary Neighborhood Council No: 2 NC Meeting Date: April 11, 2017 Project No(s): PD-S-1047

Request to construct a 65-unit, 3 story apartment complex with five affordable units at 1196 Patricia Avenue

Case Planner: Sean Gibson Questions and comments from the audience/responses from the applicant: A letter of support was submitted and is attached. Questions and comments from the Executive Board/responses from the applicant: Will access to the surrounding apartments be affected during construction?

The effect should be minimal because of the nature of the site. Being a large open area, most construction activities, equipment and supplies will be contained on site.

Will there be access to be bike trail along the Arroyo from the site?

Yes, residents will have a multi-function key fob that will open a gate down to the bike trail.

Does the applicant foresee significant traffic impacts to the area from the project?

The traffic study, which has been approved by the City, does not foresee any such impacts. Plus, the project is designed to minimize the use of cars with such features as a dedicated Uber/Lyft pickup/drop-off area because these are some preferred methods of transportation by Millennials, their target market.

A number of Executive Board members enthusiastically supported the project, both in design and the direction it takes, catering to Millennials. They were hopeful that the project would improve that area of the city. Upon conclusion of the discussion, the following motion was made by Kimmy Tharpe and seconded by Jan Smith: MOTION: Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the request to

construct a 65-unit, 3 story apartment complex with five affordable units at 1196 Patricia Avenue as presented.

Executive Board vote: 10 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: 7 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions Unincorporated Area vote: None The motion carried.

97

ATTACHMENT C

Neighborhood Council #2

Project No: PD-S-1047

Case Planner: Mr. Sean Gibson

Developer: 1196 Patricia Avenue Associates, LLC

2929 Tapo Canyon Road

Simi Valley, CA 93063

Dear Mr. Gibson,

E'CElVED t..: l f '{ OF SIMI Vt\LLC~

17 APR I I AM !O: 5 B

NVIROHt-lEHTAL SERVICES OEPAl'trt1ENT

I live at the apartment complex next door to the prospective project located next door 1196 Patricia

Avenue where 65 apartments are being proposed. I looked over the agenda for the Neighborhood

Council #2 hearing and the plans for the project. I think the design and architecture of the project is

very appealing and it will be nice to have this property improved as the plans show.

I wanted to write you a letter today to show my support for this project as designed and I think it will

improve a blighted parcel that has long been needed improvement.

Thank you

Pamela Coppedge

Simi Valley, CA 93065

98

Arborist Report Itule Project

1196 Patricia Avenue, Simi Valley, CA

Prepared for:

ITULE REAL ESTATE GROUP

Chris Itule

143 Triunfo Canyon Road, Suite 225-E

Westlake Village, CA 91361

[email protected]

Prepared in consultation with:

Lauterbach & Associates, Architects, Inc.

Mark Pettit

300 Montgomery Avenue

Oxnard, CA 93036

Consulting Arborist:

LA Johnny

John Burke

10880 Del Norte Street #27

Ventura, California

805-754-9393

November 14, 2016

©John Burke, 2016

99

ATTACHMENT D

L·A·JOHNNY Tree Report Itule Real Estate Group Project 10880 Del Norte Street #27 November 14, 2016 Ventura, California 93004 805-754-9393 WWW.LAJOHNNY.COM Page 4 of 104

TTABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 6

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 7

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 7

ASSIGNMENT .................................................................................................................................. 7

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITS ON THE ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................ 7

PURPOSE AND USE OF THE REPORT ................................................................................................... 7

OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 7

Site: ............................................................................................................................................. 8

Trees: .......................................................................................................................................... 9

Table 1 Tree Observations (On-site Trees 1 – 39) .................................................................... 10

ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 2 List of Protected Trees On-site ..................................................................................... 13

Table 3 List of Protected Trees Off-site .................................................................................... 14

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................... 14

9-38.040 - Guidelines for Reports on Protected Trees ............................................................. 14

replacement value .................................................................................................................... 15

Size ............................................................................................................................................ 16

Other Appraisal Factors ............................................................................................................ 16

Table 4 Appraised Value (On-site Trees 1 – 39)........................................................................ 17

Tree relocation .......................................................................................................................... 19

Table 5 Tree Relocation Evaluation (On-site Trees 1 – 39)....................................................... 20

100


Table 6 Tree Relocation Evaluation Feasibility List ................................................................... 22

9-38.050 - Guidelines for Trees Associated with Urban Development .................................... 22

Table 7 Tree Preservation Evaluation (On-site Trees 1 – 39) ................................................... 23

Table 8 Best Candidates for Preservation List .......................................................................... 26

9-38.070 - Tree Removal Permits ............................................................................................. 28

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 28

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 30

CERTIFICATION .............................................................................................................................. 31

GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................... 32

BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................. 34

APPENDIX A: Tree Map Reduced .................................................................................................. 35

APPENDIX B: Tree Photographs .................................................................................................... 36

APPENDIX C: TREE PROTECTION PLAN ......................................................................................... 96

Preconstruction......................................................................................................................... 96

Construction............................................................................................................................ 101

Post-Construction ................................................................................................................... 102

APPENDIX D: Information Required by Ordinance 9-38.040D ................................................... 103

Attached as a separate 22 page supporting document.......................................................... 103

APPENDIX E: Tree Appraisal Calculations ................................................................................... 104

Attached as a separate 22 page supporting document.......................................................... 104

101


SUMMARY

This arborist report was commissioned by the Itule Real Estate in connection with their

development of the property at 1196 Patricia Avenue, Simi Valley, CA. The report addresses

specific questions raised in the municipal code Chapter 9-38 - Tree Preservation, Cutting, and

Removal.

The surveyor had already mapped the trees on site and those within 20’ of the proposed

development. City guidelines for the tree report requires that the trees be inventoried,

numbered and described in specific ways. It also requires an appraisal of the trees dollar value

using the trunk formula method of tree appraisal. The arborist is required to address the

technical feasibility and cost of relocating the trees and help identify the best candidates for

preservation in place.

After examining the information gathered for this report and the proposed site plan the

developer and design team determined that no protected trees on site could be preserved. To

assist with protecting off-site trees, this report includes a tree protection plan (TPP) in Appendix

C. That TPP includes actions that should be taken before, during and after construction to safe

guard off site trees numbers 71 through 88.

The total appraised value of the eighteen protected trees proposed for removal is $35,600.

Six recommendation are listed on page 30.

102


INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND

I was hired by Mr. Chris Itule to do a tree report for a proposed project in Simi Valley, California.

ASSIGNMENT

Prepare an arborist report as described in the City of Simi Valley Ordinance, Chapter 9-38 Tree

Preservation, Cutting and Removal and the City of Simi Valley Guidelines for the Preparation of

Tree Reports.

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITS ON THE ASSIGNMENT

All the observations were made from the project site so measurements of off-site trees are

approximations.

Scope of assignment is the preparation of the report as described in the ordinance and does not

include construction supervision, construction monitoring or additional reports that may be

required as a condition of approval.

PURPOSE AND USE OF THE REPORT

This report is intended use by the City of Simi Valley, the developer and the developers’ design

consultants and architects.

OBSERVATIONS

Observations were made on site on September 1st and 22nd.

103


SITE:

Appears to be one or two old home sites with only one home remaining. The home is used as

an office and storage yard for a landscape maintenance company. Most of the site is either

gravel or old concrete slabs or weeds. Most of the trees are dead or dying except for the eight

trees along the south edge beside the flood control channel. I didn’t see any signs of an

irrigation system.

The some of the property line fences are topped with razor wire indicating possible safety

concerns on their part. I observed places where people had been eating, sleeping and relieving

themselves. I also observed a couple dead rats and birds on the lot. One the west side of the

site the back of a carwash can be seen. On the north side of the site is a parking lot that is about

two feet higher than the site.

I used the ALTA / ACSM Land Title Survey prepared by the Azmuth Group and was able to locate

all the trees using the plan. All were located as shown on the plan. I numbered the trees 1-88

starting with the trees on site. I found 70 trees on the site and 18 more that were within 20 feet

of the property lines.

The site is relatively flat except for the southern edge where a significant grade break occurs.

Four trees, numbers 67 -70 are planted on that grade break so their root plates are split into

two different planes.

The trees along the flood control channel (63 – 71) can only be accessed from the public path

that crosses the site. I used the access gate on First Street. The remaining 62 on-site trees were

accessed by making arrangements with the tenant by way of Chris Itule. The trees around the

perimeter of the site were observed from the site and their DBH was estimated.

104


TREES:

The primary observations for each tree can be seen in the list below. For complete information

on each tree see the supporting information for each tree found in Appendix B: Tree

Photographs, Appendix D: Information Required by Ordinance 9-38.040D and Appendix E Tree

Appraisal Calculations.

105


TABLE 1 TREE OBSERVATIONS (ON-SITE TREES 1 – 39)

#

Off-

site

Common Name Mult Trks DBH

Wid

th Cond. Rating He

alth

Aest

hetic

Notes

1 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B2 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B3 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B4 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B5 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B6 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B7 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B8 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B9 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B

10 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B11 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B12 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B13 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B14 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B15 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B16 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B17 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B18 Italian cypress 5.4 3 64% B B19 DEAD - elm 3 0%20 Crepe myrtle 4.1 10 64% B B21 Camphor 4.5 8 56% D D22 DEAD - camphor 0%23 Liquidambar 9.0 10 36% D D24 Liquidambar 10.0 10 36% D D25 Evergreen ash 3.5 5 64% B C in fence wire26 Myoporum 4 8.1 15 20% D D27 Myoporum 3 6.4 15 20% D D28 Myoporum 6.0 15 20% D D29 Myoporum 4 9.6 15 20% D D30 Myoporum 2 5.4 15 20% D D31 Myoporum 4 6.6 15 20% D D32 Peruvian pepper 0.0 5 72% B D33 Myoporum 2 6.4 15 20% D D34 Peru Pepper 5 18.8 35 60% C B35 CA walnut 18.0 35 60% C C36 Myoporum 6 13.3 12 56% D D37 Myoporum 8 9.4 12 20% D D38 Myoporum 5 10.0 12 20% D D39 Myoporum 4 13.3 12 20% D D

106


Table 1 Tree Observations Continued (On-site Trees 40-70)

#

Off-

site


Wid

th Cond. Rating He

alth

Aest

hetic

Notes

40 golden waddle 12.0 40 20% C D leaning trunk41 Bottlebrush 17.0 30 56% D D spliting trk.42 Italian cypress 5.1 3 28% B B43 Italian cypress 5.1 3 72% B B44 Italian cypress 5.1 3 72% B B45 Italian cypress 5.1 3 72% B B46 Italian cypress 5.1 3 72% B B47 Italian cypress 5.1 3 72% B B48 Siberian elm 37.0 15 72% D D topped49 Juniper 4.0 5 20% B C50 Juniper 2 3.6 5 64% B C51 Juniper 2 3.6 5 64% B C52 Juniper 4.0 5 64% B C53 Juniper 3 5.2 5 64% B C54 Juniper 2 4.2 5 64% B C55 Juniper 2 4.5 5 64% B C56 Lemon 3.0 8 64% C C topped57 Crepe myrtle 4.1 10 48% B B container58 Queen palm 15' BT 10 72% B B forced multi59 Queen palm 15' BT 10 73% B B forced multi60 Queen palm 15' BT 10 73% B B forced multi61 Crepe myrtle 3.5 10 73% B B container62 Mex. fan palm 3' BT 8 72% A B63 Peru Pepper 16.0 30 72% C C REMOVE VINE64 Peru Pepper 24.0 30 60% C C REMOVE VINE65 Peru Pepper 28.0 40 52% B B PRUNE TO RAISE66 Evergreen ash 30.0 30 56% B B67 Coast live oak 23.0 30 72% C C PRUNE TO CLEAN68 Valley oak 21.0 30 60% B B PRUNE TO RAISE69 Valley oak 2 19.2 30 60% B B70 Peru Pepper 3 29.8 40 60% B C

107


Table 1 Tree Observations Continued (Off-site Trees 71 -88)

#

Off-

site


Wid

th Cond. Rating He

alth

Aest

hetic

Notes

71 * Coast live oak 22.0 25 68% B B PRUNE TO RAISE72 * Crepe myrtle 4.1 10 72% C C73 * Crepe myrtle 4.1 11 72% C C74 * Yew Pine 12.0 30 72% B B75 * Yew Pine 12.0 20 56% C C76 * Yew Pine 12.0 20 56% C C77 * Yew Pine 12.0 20 56% C C78 * Chinese jun 6.0 15 56% B C PRUNE TO RAISE79 * Chinese jun 6.0 15 60% B C PRUNE TO RAISE80 * Chinese jun 6.0 15 60% B C PRUNE TO RAISE81 * Chinese jun 6.0 15 60% B C PRUNE TO RAISE82 * Chinese jun 6.0 15 60% B C PRUNE TO RAISE83 * Floss silk tree 10.0 15 60% C C84 * Mex. fan palm 25' BT 8 72% B C85 * Queen palm 20' BT 10 72% C C86 * Queen palm 18' BT 10 72% C C87 * Mex. fan palm 12' BT 5 72% B C88 * Queen palm 18' BT 20 72% B B

ANALYSIS

Protected trees on the site. To determine which trees were protected I compared the DBH to

the permitting authority’s guidelines as shown below:

City of Simi Valley Guidelines for the Preparation of TREE REPORTS

DEFINITIONS:

Mature Tree is a living tree with a cross-sectioned area of all major stems, as

measured four and one-half (4½) feet above the root crown, of 72 or more

square inches (9½ inches in diameter if a single trunk).

108


Mature Native Oak Tree is a living valley, coast live, or scrub oak (Quercus lobata,

agrifolia or dumosa) or hybrids of these species with a cross-sectioned area of all

major stems, as measured 4½ feet above the root crown, of 20 or more square

inches (5 inches in diameter if a single trunk).

TABLE 2 LIST OF PROTECTED TREES ON-SITE

The following eighteen trees are large enough to be considered protected according to the local

ordinance.

#

Off-

site

Common Name DBH

Prot

ect?

24 Liquidambar 10.0 yes29 Myoporum 9.6 yes34 Peru Pepper 18.8 yes35 CA walnut 18.0 yes36 Myoporum 13.3 yes38 Myoporum 10.0 yes39 Myoporum 13.3 yes40 golden waddle 12.0 yes41 Bottlebrush 17.0 yes48 Siberian elm 37.0 yes63 Peru Pepper 16.0 yes64 Peru Pepper 24.0 yes65 Peru Pepper 28.0 yes66 Evergreen ash 30.0 yes67 Coast live oak 23.0 yes68 Valley oak 21.0 yes69 Valley oak 19.2 yes70 Peru Pepper 29.8 yes

109


TABLE 3 LIST OF PROTECTED TREES OFF-SITE

These trees should be protected because they are growing on the adjacent properties.

71 * Coast live oak 22.0 yes72 * Crepe myrtle 4.1 yes73 * Crepe myrtle 4.1 yes74 * Yew Pine 12.0 yes75 * Yew Pine 12.0 yes76 * Yew Pine 12.0 yes77 * Yew Pine 12.0 yes78 * Chinese jun 6.0 yes79 * Chinese jun 6.0 yes80 * Chinese jun 6.0 yes81 * Chinese jun 6.0 yes82 * Chinese jun 6.0 yes83 * Floss silk tree 10.0 yes84 * Mex. fan palm 25' BT yes85 * Queen palm 20' BT yes86 * Queen palm 18' BT yes87 * Mex. fan palm 12' BT yes88 * Queen palm 18' BT yes

DISCUSSION 9-38.040 - GUIDELINES FOR REPORTS ON PROTECTED TREES

The ordinance specifies nine items to be included in the tree report. The data for each of the 88

trees in the study can be found in Appendix D: Information Required by Ordinance 9-38.040D.

Among the information required is the appraised value of the trees and an assessment of the

technical feasibility of relocating the trees. Following is a general discussion of the relevant

issues.

110


REPLACEMENT VALUE

The municipal ordinance says the following about the tree report required by the City, “The

replacement value of each tree which shall be established, and provided to the City, using the

most recent edition of the "Guide for Establishing Values of Trees, and Other Plants" prepared

by the Council of Tree Landscape Appraisers.” The most recent edition is called “Guide for Plant

Appraisal” (9th Edition, 2000).

Site Rating

Site is one of the three elements that make up the Location Rating used in tree appraisal. The

Location Rating is an average of Site, Contribution and Placement. Unlike other parts of the

formula these ratings are subjective.

A 2015 study by Komen and Hodel pointed out, “the trunk formula method has been criticized

for the high degree of variation sometimes encountered among appraisers, often 100% to 200%

or higher. …most of this variation was due to differences in condition and location ratings,

which many practitioners have contended are too subjective.” (Komen and Hodel, p. 278)

Based on my observations described above and my training, experience, and The Guide for

Plant Appraisal. (CTLA, p. 52-54) I rated this site in the bottom third, 33%. The surrounding

properties I rated higher at 50%.

My Contribution Ratings and Placement Ratings can be seen the trunk formula calculations for

each tree in Appendix E. Additional information can be gleaned from the other supporting

documents attached to this report. Like the Site Rating, the Contribution and Placement Ratings

are based on my observations described above and my training, experience, and The Guide for

Plant Appraisal. (CTLA, p. 52-54).

111


SIZE

Both the standard for appraising trees and the local ordinance use the same standard for

measuring the size of trees which is the area of the cross section of the trunk at 4.5’ above

ground. This is also referred to as diameter at breast height or more commonly DBH. Although

measuring size sounds simple it is not because trees can be multi-trunked or low branching or

on a steep slope or even swollen and distorted by various factors.

The Guide for plant Appraisal devotes 16 pages to describing how to arrive at the correct size

for tree appraisal. (CTLA, p. 35-51).Size is measured in square inches. Very large trees, those

over 722 square inches, are adjusted to a smaller size for appraisal purposes. . (CTLA, p. 38).

OTHER APPRAISAL FACTORS

Two other factors used in tree appraisal are the Species Rating and Nursery Group assignments.

These vary by species and are looked up in a regional supplement. (Regional Supplement, 2004)

The ratings were determined for each climate by a committee of experts and the common

species were assigned a rating from 10% to 90% with the higher species rating for the most

valuable native trees like the coast live oak. The same guide also assigns a nursery group to

each tree species. The nursery groups 1 through 4 reflect how quickly the species grows. The

nursery group assigns a basic cost per square inch for each species.

The trunk formula method combines the factors described above to calculate the value of a

tree. Calculations for each tree can be found in Appendix E Tree Appraisal Calculations. Below is

a list of all the trees and their appraised value.

112


TABLE 4 APPRAISED VALUE (ON-SITE TREES 1 – 39)

#

Off-

site

Common Name

Prot

ect?

$ Value

1 Italian cypress no 400$ 2 Italian cypress no 400$ 3 Italian cypress no 400$ 4 Italian cypress no 400$ 5 Italian cypress no 400$ 6 Italian cypress no 400$ 7 Italian cypress no 400$ 8 Italian cypress no 400$ 9 Italian cypress no 400$

10 Italian cypress no 400$ 11 Italian cypress no 400$ 12 Italian cypress no 400$ 13 Italian cypress no 400$ 14 Italian cypress no 400$ 15 Italian cypress no 400$ 16 Italian cypress no 400$ 17 Italian cypress no 400$ 18 Italian cypress no 400$ 19 DEAD - elm no (300)$ 20 Crepe myrtle no 400$ 21 Camphor no 300$ 22 DEAD - camphor no (300)$ 23 Liquidambar no 300$ 24 Liquidambar yes 300$ 25 Evergreen ash no 100$ 26 Myoporum no 100$ 27 Myoporum no 100$ 28 Myoporum no 100$ 29 Myoporum yes 200$ 30 Myoporum no 100$ 31 Myoporum no 100$ 32 Peruvian pepper no -$ 33 Myoporum no 100$ 34 Peru Pepper yes 2,000$ 35 CA walnut yes 1,400$ 36 Myoporum yes 300$ 37 Myoporum no 100$ 38 Myoporum yes 200$ 39 Myoporum yes 300$

113


Table 4 Continued Appraised Value (On-site Trees 40 – 70)

#

Off-

site

Common Name

Prot

ect?

$ Value

40 golden waddle yes 700$ 41 Bottlebrush yes 1,300$ 42 Italian cypress no 400$ 43 Italian cypress no 400$ 44 Italian cypress no 400$ 45 Italian cypress no 400$ 46 Italian cypress no 400$ 47 Italian cypress no 400$ 48 Siberian elm yes 200$ 49 Juniper no 300$ 50 Juniper no 300$ 51 Juniper no 300$ 52 Juniper no 300$ 53 Juniper no 400$ 54 Juniper no 300$ 55 Juniper no 300$ 56 Lemon no 200$ 57 Crepe myrtle no 400$ 58 Queen palm no 300$ 59 Queen palm no 300$ 60 Queen palm no 300$ 61 Crepe myrtle no 300$ 62 Mex. fan palm no 40$ 63 Peru Pepper yes 1,400$ 64 Peru Pepper yes 2,600$ 65 Peru Pepper yes 4,500$ 66 Evergreen ash yes 3,500$ 67 Coast live oak yes 4,600$ 68 Valley oak yes 3,600$ 69 Valley oak yes 3,000$ 70 Peru Pepper yes 5,500$

114


Table 4 Continued Appraised Value (Off-site Trees 71 – 88)

#

Off-

site

Common Name

Prot

ect?

$ Value

71 * Coast live oak yes 5,000$ 72 * Crepe myrtle yes 400$ 73 * Crepe myrtle yes 400$ 74 * Yew Pine yes 2,000$ 75 * Yew Pine yes 1,900$ 76 * Yew Pine yes 1,900$ 77 * Yew Pine yes 1,900$ 78 * Chinese jun yes 700$ 79 * Chinese jun yes 700$ 80 * Chinese jun yes 700$ 81 * Chinese jun yes 700$ 82 * Chinese jun yes 700$ 83 * Floss silk tree yes 500$ 84 * Mex. fan palm yes 300$ 85 * Queen palm yes 500$ 86 * Queen palm yes 400$ 87 * Mex. fan palm yes 100$ 88 * Queen palm yes 400$

Value of all trees in study: $69,640

Value of all trees on site: $50,440

Value of all protected trees on site: $35,600

TREE RELOCATION

The municipal ordinance says the following about tree relocation, “An evaluation of the

technical feasibility of relocating each tree and the probable cost of relocation.” I applied the

factors described in the Best Management Practices for Managing Trees During Construction

(Fite, pp 5-7). That information is consolidated in the table below:

115


TABLE 5 TREE RELOCATION EVALUATION (ON-SITE TREES 1 – 39)

#

Off-

site

Common Name

Prot

ect?

$ Value Evaluate Tree Relocation Relocation Issues Estimated Relocation

cost

1 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible2 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible3 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible4 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible5 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible6 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible7 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible8 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible9 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible

10 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible11 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible12 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible13 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible14 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible15 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible16 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible17 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible18 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible19 DEAD - elm no (300)$ n/a n/a20 Crepe myrtle no 400$ feasible drought stress $2,50021 Camphor no 300$ not feasible condition not feasible22 DEAD - camphor no (300)$ n/a n/a23 Liquidambar no 300$ not feasible condition not feasible24 Liquidambar yes 300$ not feasible condition not feasible25 Evergreen ash no 100$ not feasible age, fence not feasible26 Myoporum no 100$ not feasible disease not feasible27 Myoporum no 100$ not feasible disease not feasible28 Myoporum no 100$ not feasible disease not feasible29 Myoporum yes 200$ not feasible disease not feasible30 Myoporum no 100$ not feasible disease not feasible31 Myoporum no 100$ not feasible disease not feasible32 Peruvian pepper no -$ not feasible disease not feasible33 Myoporum no 100$ not feasible disease not feasible34 Peru Pepper yes 2,000$ not feasible spec, 5 trk. fence not feasible35 CA walnut yes 1,400$ not feasible trk form, age, health not feasible36 Myoporum yes 300$ not feasible disease not feasible37 Myoporum no 100$ not feasible disease not feasible38 Myoporum yes 200$ not feasible disease not feasible39 Myoporum yes 300$ not feasible disease not feasible

116


Table 5 Continued Tree Relocation Evaluation (On-site Trees 40 – 70)

#

Off-

site

Common Name

Prot

ect?


cost

40 golden waddle yes 700$ not feasible species, form, cond. not feasible41 Bottlebrush yes 1,300$ not feasible age, form, cond. not feasible42 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible43 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible44 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible45 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible46 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible47 Italian cypress no 400$ not feasible form, condition not feasible48 Siberian elm yes 200$ not feasible age, condition not feasible49 Juniper no 300$ not feasible age, condition not feasible50 Juniper no 300$ not feasible age, condition not feasible51 Juniper no 300$ not feasible age, condition not feasible52 Juniper no 300$ not feasible age, condition not feasible53 Juniper no 400$ not feasible age, condition not feasible54 Juniper no 300$ not feasible age, condition not feasible55 Juniper no 300$ not feasible age, condition not feasible56 Lemon no 200$ not feasible condition, footing not feasible57 Crepe myrtle no 400$ feasible drought stress $2,50058 Queen palm no 300$ not feasible roots concrete not feasible59 Queen palm no 300$ not feasible roots concrete not feasible60 Queen palm no 300$ not feasible roots concrete not feasible61 Crepe myrtle no 300$ feasible drought stress $2,50062 Mex. fan palm no 40$ feasible $2,50063 Peru Pepper yes 1,400$ not feasible spe, cond, wall not feasible64 Peru Pepper yes 2,600$ not feasible spe, cond, wall not feasible65 Peru Pepper yes 4,500$ not feasible species, age, slope not feasible66 Evergreen ash yes 3,500$ not feasible trk lean, ht, slope not feasible67 Coast live oak yes 4,600$ not feasible slope, trk lean not feasible68 Valley oak yes 3,600$ not feasible slope, trk lean not feasible69 Valley oak yes 3,000$ not feasible slope, trk lean not feasible70 Peru Pepper yes 5,500$ not feasible spe, form, slope not feasible

I evaluated all 70 trees and in my opinion relocation is not feasible for 66 of the trees including

all 18 of the protected trees on site. Many of trees are diseased like the Myoporum. The water

loving trees like camphor and liquidambar may be dying from drought stress or related causes.

Many of the trees have structural faults like leaning trunks and multiple trunks.

117


I assessed the mature oaks along the south edge of the property. It is not typical to relocate

large trees growing on a slope and this situation is even more difficult since the root plates

grow in two sloped planes not just one. In addition to the difficulty of moving a bend root plate,

the trees would have to be planted in a similar slope configuration. In addition the trunks lean,

another reason it is impractical to move them.

Of the 70 trees on site I believe it is technically feasible to relocate four trees: three small crepe

myrtles and one small Mexican fan palm. See List Below

TABLE 6 TREE RELOCATION EVALUATION FEASIBILITY LIST

#

Off-

site

Common Name

Prot

ect?


cost

20 Crepe myrtle no 400$ feasible drought stress $2,50057 Crepe myrtle no 400$ feasible drought stress $2,50061 Crepe myrtle no 300$ feasible drought stress $2,50062 Mex. fan palm no 40$ feasible $2,500

While it is technically possible to relocate these four it is up to others to determine whether

that is appropriate. The crepe myrtles are already drought stressed and a similar size crepe

myrtle on the adjacent lot has died recently. Digging and boxing them would destroy a lot of

roots. They would need to be stored and maintained until they could be replanted.

9-38.050 - GUIDELINES FOR TREES ASSOCIATED WITH URBAN DEVELOPMENT

This section of the municipal code requires knowing the best candidates for preservation. To

assist with that this study examined each trees suitability starting with health, structural

defects, tolerance for construction, age, site soil, species desirability and aesthetic grade. That

information is consolidated in the tables below:

118


TABLE 7 TREE PRESERVATION EVALUATION (ON-SITE TREES 1 – 39)

#

Off-

site

Common Name Best Preservation Issues

Scor

e

Heal

th

Defe

cts

Tole

ranc

e

Age

Soil

Spec

ies

Heal

th

Aest

hetic

1 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B2 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B3 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B4 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B5 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B6 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B7 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B8 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B9 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B

10 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B11 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B12 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B13 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B14 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B15 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B16 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B17 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B18 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.7 10 10 15 5 5 5 B B19 DEAD - elm - 20 Crepe myrtle 1 drought stress 0.6 10 10 7 5 5 5 B B21 Camphor condition 0.4 3 7 5 5 5 8 D D22 DEAD - camphor - 23 Liquidambar condition 0.4 3 7 5 5 5 8 D D24 Liquidambar condition 0.4 3 7 5 5 5 8 D D25 Evergreen ash age, fence 0.5 7 1 15 10 5 1 B C26 Myoporum disease 0.2 1 1 7 2 5 1 D D27 Myoporum disease 0.2 1 1 7 2 5 1 D D28 Myoporum disease 0.2 1 1 7 2 5 1 D D29 Myoporum disease 0.2 1 1 7 2 5 1 D D30 Myoporum disease 0.2 1 1 7 2 5 1 D D31 Myoporum disease 0.2 1 1 7 2 5 1 D D32 Peruvian pepper disease 0.5 7 1 7 10 5 6 B D33 Myoporum disease 0.2 1 1 7 2 5 1 D D34 Peru Pepper size, risk, wall location 0.5 7 1 7 10 5 6 C B35 CA walnut trk form, age, health 0.4 7 5 1 3 5 7 C C36 Myoporum disease 0.2 1 1 7 2 5 1 D D37 Myoporum disease 0.2 1 1 7 2 5 1 D D38 Myoporum disease 0.2 1 1 7 2 5 1 D D39 Myoporum disease 0.2 1 1 7 2 5 1 D D

119


Table 7 Tree Preservation Evaluation continued (On-site Trees 40 – 70)

#

Off-

site


Scor

e

Heal

th

Defe

cts

Tole

ranc

e

Age

Soil

Spec

ies

Heal

th

Aest

hetic

40 golden waddle species, form, cond. 0.3 5 5 1 2 5 5 C D41 Bottlebrush age, form, cond. 0.4 5 3 11 2 5 5 D D42 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.6 5 10 15 5 5 5 B B43 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.6 5 10 15 5 5 5 B B44 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.6 5 10 15 5 5 5 B B45 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.6 5 10 15 5 5 5 B B46 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.6 5 10 15 5 5 5 B B47 Italian cypress hedge/screen 0.6 5 10 15 5 5 5 B B48 Siberian elm age, topped 0.5 2 10 11 4 5 2 D D49 Juniper hedge/screen 0.6 8 13 11 3 5 5 B C50 Juniper hedge/screen 0.6 8 13 11 3 5 5 B C51 Juniper hedge/screen 0.6 8 13 11 3 5 5 B C52 Juniper hedge/screen 0.6 8 13 11 3 5 5 B C53 Juniper hedge/screen 0.6 8 13 11 3 5 5 B C54 Juniper hedge/screen 0.6 8 13 11 3 5 5 B C55 Juniper hedge/screen 0.6 8 13 11 3 5 5 B C56 Lemon condition, age 0.6 5 13 11 3 5 7 C C57 Crepe myrtle 1 drought stress 0.6 10 10 7 5 5 5 B B58 Queen palm palm 0.6 8 5 15 5 5 5 B B59 Queen palm palm 0.6 8 5 15 5 5 5 B B60 Queen palm palm 0.6 8 5 15 5 5 5 B B61 Crepe myrtle 1 drought stress 0.6 10 10 7 5 5 5 B B62 Mex. fan palm 0.7 12 12 15 9 5 3 A B63 Peru Pepper 1 spe, cond, wall 0.5 7 8 11 4 5 6 C C64 Peru Pepper 1 spe, cond, wall 0.6 8 8 11 4 5 6 C C65 Peru Pepper 1 species, age, slope 0.6 10 10 11 4 5 6 B B66 Evergreen ash 1 trk lean, ht, slope 0.6 10 10 12 6 5 1 B B67 Coast live oak 1 condition 0.8 10 14 15 6 5 10 C C68 Valley oak 1 condition, tolerance 0.7 12 12 7 6 5 10 B B69 Valley oak 1 multi, tolerance 0.6 12 8 7 6 5 10 B B70 Peru Pepper 1 spe, form, slope 0.7 10 10 11 7 5 6 B C

120


Table 7 Tree Preservation Evaluation continued (Off-site Trees 71– 88)

#

Off-

site


Scor

e

Heal

th

Defe

cts

Tole

ranc

e

Age

Soil

Spec

ies

Heal

th

Aest

hetic

71 * Coast live oak off-site protect B B72 * Crepe myrtle off-site protect C C73 * Crepe myrtle off-site protect C C74 * Yew Pine off-site protect B B75 * Yew Pine off-site protect C C76 * Yew Pine off-site protect C C77 * Yew Pine off-site protect C C78 * Chinese jun off-site protect B C79 * Chinese jun off-site protect B C80 * Chinese jun off-site protect B C81 * Chinese jun off-site protect B C82 * Chinese jun off-site protect B C83 * Floss silk tree off-site protect C C84 * Mex. fan palm off-site protect B C85 * Queen palm off-site protect C C86 * Queen palm off-site protect C C87 * Mex. fan palm off-site protect B C88 * Queen palm off-site protect B B

The authors who developed this General Conservation Suitability Worksheet point out that it is

just a guide and “should not be used as the sole determinant of a trees suitability. An arborist’s

judgment should override the total score if any one category is low enough to eliminate the

tree from preservation status.” (Fite, p.8). Analysis of the location of cut or fill relative to the

trees and the distance from canopy to construction of new structures was done by the owners

design team.

But regardless of the site plan many of the trees are not suitable for preservation with poor

health and structural defects being the main causes. Based on my evaluation of all the data and

supporting documentation, I created the following list of 11 trees which I consider the best

candidates for preservation without regard to the proposed site plan.

121


TABLE 8 BEST CANDIDATES FOR PRESERVATION LIST

#

Off-

site

Common Name

Prot

ect?

$ Value Best Preservation Issues

20 Crepe myrtle no 400$ 1 drought stress57 Crepe myrtle no 400$ 1 drought stress61 Crepe myrtle no 300$ 1 drought stress63 Peru Pepper yes 1,400$ 1 spe, cond, wall64 Peru Pepper yes 2,600$ 1 spe, cond, wall65 Peru Pepper yes 4,500$ 1 species, age, slope66 Evergreen ash yes 3,500$ 1 trk lean, ht, slope67 Coast live oak yes 4,600$ 1 condition68 Valley oak yes 3,600$ 1 condition, tolerance69 Valley oak yes 3,000$ 1 multi, tolerance70 Peru Pepper yes 5,500$ 1 spe, form, slope

For the best preservation candidates I included additional graphic information on the tree map

beyond what is specified by the municipal code. In addition to the tree canopy and the

protected zone I showed the critical root zone to assist the design team in evaluating the

impacts of construction. See the image below from the map legend.

122


The owner and the project architect, civil engineer and landscape architect looked at the best

candidates and determined which were feasible for preservation based on the proposed plans

and tree data. They used the tree map and supporting documents prepared for this report.

Based on their analysis of the proposed site plan, the tree map and tree data they determined

that no trees could be preserved.

The developer’s initial design preserved pepper trees 63 and 64. But review of the proposed

plan identified a requirement to provide access from the site to the adjacent public access trail.

In an email dated November 15, 2016 the project engineer Jim Faul said, “The area of the two

questioned trees is the requested access stairs to the channel recreation trail.” On November

17, 2016 the project architect, Mark Pettit wrote “The proposed edge of sidewalk to the bike

path is about 3 feet give or take 6 inches to each tree, based on the ALTA survey. The sidewalk

will be constructed in a way that about one foot to 2 feet on either side of the sidewalk will most

likely be disturbed during construction.” The engineer, architect, and developer believe removal

of the two pepper trees will be necessary and I concur for the following reasons. In the best

case all roots on the east side of the trees will be removed to within 2.5’ and 1’ in the worst

123


case. The trees have been poorly pruned with heading cuts used. I rated both a “C” for health

and aesthetics. The trees aren’t likely to survive long term. They might become unstable as

result of excavating so close to the trunk. Located beside public sidewalks the trees may pose

an “Allergy and Irritant Health Hazard” per the Cal-Poly San Luis Obispo SelecTree website.

9-38.070 - TREE REMOVAL PERMITS

This section of the municipal code contains valuable information for the owner and the owner’s

landscape architect, engineers and design professionals. Information generated by this report

will in some cases need to be reflected in the drawings and specifications generated by these

members of the design team. One issue that will arise is the value of trees lost.

It is my understanding that the owner will have to compensate for the appraised value of

protected trees if the City permits those trees to be removed. The exact terms of the

compensation is worked out between the City of Simi Valley, the owner and the owner’s design

team as described in this section of the municipal code.

CONCLUSIONS

The owner and design team should review the entire tree ordinance Chapter 9-38 - Tree

Preservation, Cutting, and Removal for specific requirements affecting various drawings and

documents. Information from this tree report and tree map will need to be integrated into the

design drawings and documents as part of the “proposed preservation plan.”

The design team should review the proposed site plan to determine whether clearance pruning

of off-site trees will be needed due to proposing new walls, fences, structures, utilities or fire

access lanes. If clearance pruning is indicated then follow the pruning specifications that are

part of the tree protection plan in Appendix C. The off-site trees should not die or suffer

significant damage as a result of the pruning as specified.

124


1. Trees on site: 70 (numbers 1 through 70)

2. Protected trees on site: 18

3. Protected trees for which relocation is technically feasible: 0

4. Trees for which relocation is technically feasible: 4

5. Protected trees that are arborist’s best candidates for preservation: 8 (#63-70)

6. Protected trees for which preservation is feasible given site plan: 0

7. Trees on site total appraised value: $50,440

8. Protected trees on site total appraised value: $35,600

9. Protected trees on site proposed to preserve: $0

10. Protected trees on site proposed to remove: $35,600

11. Preserved on site trees will need protection before during and after construction per the

Tree Protection Plan Appendix C

12. Trees off-site but within 20’: 18 (numbers 71 through 88)

13. All off-site trees will need protection before during and after construction per the Tree

Protection Plan Appendix C.

14. Total estimated value of all off-site trees: $19,200

125


RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Integrate the information from this report into the “proposed preservation plan,” as

described in the Simi Valley municipal code Chapter 9-38 - Tree Preservation, Cutting, and

Removal. Including the following:

3. Following approval of a development, the developer shall submit grading and

precise landscaping plans detailing the approved preservation plan.

4. The locations of all protected trees shall be indicated on these plans by the

number of the tree as described in the tree study, with details indicating which

trees shall be preserved or relocated, and which shall be removed.

II. Review site plan and determine whether clearance pruning of off-site trees will be needed.

III. Submit the required number of copies of this report and the engineer’s proposed Grading

Plan to the City Planner for review.

IV. Review the Tree Protection Plan in Appendix C to assess the cost impact of protection

requirements.

V. Track value of protected trees removed appraised at $35,600 on the landscape plans.

126


CERTIFICATION

PREMISES: 1196 Patricia Ave, Simi Valley, CA

I, John Burke, CERTIFY to the best of my knowledge and belief:

1. That the statements of fact contained in this plant appraisal are true and correct.

2. That the appraisal analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported

assumptions and limiting conditions, and that they are my personal, unbiased professional

analysis, opinions and conclusions.

3. That I have no present of prospective interest in the plants that are the subject of this

appraisal, and that I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.

4. That my compensation is not contingent upon predetermined value or direction in value

that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a

stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.

Date: November 14, 2016

Landscape Architect & Registered Consulting Arborist

California Landscape Architect #5251 Registered Consulting Arborist #591 ASCA Certified Consulting Arborist #WE-8327A ISA

127


GLOSSARY

Condition Rating Tree Condition Rating is combination of health and structure expressed

as a percentage.

International Society of Arboriculture International non-profit organization headquarters

in Champaign, IL. ISA promotes the professional practice of arboriculture and a greater

public awareness of the benefits of trees USA. It has over 21,000 members across the

globe.

Plant Replacement Cost Materials and labor to replace damage plants. (CTLA, 2000, p. 79)

Regional Plant Appraisal Committee A committee of experts convened by a chapter or

other regional authority recognized by the International Society of Arboriculture for the

purpose of providing information needed to appraise trees in a given region. For

California the committee is organized by the Western Chapter of the International

Society of Arboriculture.

Regional Supplement An official companion publication to the CTLA Guide for Plant

Appraisal. Contains regional information on Species Rating, Nursery Group and

Replacement Tree Cost.

Replacement Cost Method A cost approach to tree appraisal described in the CTLA

Guide for Plant Appraisal. It is similar to the Trunk Formula Method. Palms are priced

per trunk foot and assessed by Species, Condition, and Location.

Topping “Inappropriate pruning technique to reduce tree size. Cutting back a tree to a

predetermined crown limit, often at internodes.” (Gilman, 2008, p. 35)

Tree A plant that produces wood (made by xylem cells).

128


60” box Nurseries sell trees by container size usually starting with 5 gallon, 15 gallon, 24

inch box, 36 inch box, 48 inch box and 60 inch box.

Protected Tree: see below taken from the Simi Valley municipal code:

Simi Valley Code of Ordinance, Chapter 9-80 - Definitions

Tree. The following terms and phrases are defined for the purposes of Chapter 9-

38 (Tree Preservation and Removal).

1. Historic Tree. A living tree designated by resolution of the Council as an

historic tree because of an association with some event or person of

historical significance to the community, or because of special

recognition due to aesthetic qualities, condition, or size.

2. Mature Native Oak Tree. A living native oak tree with a cross-sectional area of

all major stems, as measured four and one-half feet above the root

crown, of 20 or more square inches. (5” DBH)

3. Mature Tree. A living tree with a cross-sectional area of all major stems, as

measured four and one-half feet above the root crown, of 72 (9.5” DBH)

or more square inches. Mature trees shall not include stump regrowths.

4. Native Oak Tree. A living tree of the genus Quercus and species agrifolia,

berberidifolia, lobata, or hybrids thereof.

5. Protected Trees. All historic trees, all mature native oak trees, or any mature

trees which are associated with a proposal for urban development, are

located on a vacant parcel, or are located on developed properties.

129


BIBLIOGRAPHY American National Standards Institute A300 Part 1: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance – Standard Practices, Pruning (2008)

Brenzel, Kathleen. The New Sunset Western Garden Book, 9th Ed. New York, Time Home Entertainment Inc., 2012. Print.

Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2000. Guide for Plant Appraisal (9th Edition). International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL.

Fite, Kelby and Smiley, T. Best Management Practices for Managing Trees During Construction (Revised, 2008) International Society of Arboriculture. 2008

Gilman, Edward and Lilly, Sharon, Best Management Practices Tree Pruning (Revised, 2008)

International Society of Arboriculture. 2008

Regional Supplement: Species Classification and Group Assignment to the CTLA Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition. The Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture, Porterville, CA, 2004.

SelecTree. 1995-2015. Dec 6, 2015. Retrieved from <http://selectree.calpoly.edu/ >

Simi Valley Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 9-38.

<https://www.municode.com/library/ca/simi_valley/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9D

ECOSIVAMUCO_CH9-38TRPRCURE>

130


APPENDIX A: TREE MAP REDUCED

The Tree Map is a 30 x 42 sheet attached to this report. Below is a reduced image.

131


APPENDIX B: TREE PHOTOGRAPHS

Above: tree 1 through 18 Italian cypress

132


Above tree 19. Dead elm, trumpet vine

133


Above tree 20. Crepe myrtle

134


Above tree 21. Camphor

135


Above tree 22. Dead Camphor’s

136


Above tree 23 and 24. Liquidambar

137


Above 25. Evergreen ashe

138


Above 26. Myoporum. Dead Myoporum in front. Trumpet vine foliage.

139


Above 27. Myoporum

140


Above right to left 28, 29, 30 Myoporum

141


Above 31. Myoporum with Peruvian pepper behind

142


Above 32. Peruvian pepper sapling behind dead Myoporum.

143


Above 33. Myoporum

144


Above 34. Peruvian pepper

145


Above 35. California walnut

146


Above 36, 37, 38 and 39. Myoporum

147


Above 40. Acacia golden waddle

148


Above 41. Weeping Bottlebrush

149


Above right to left. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47. Italian cypress

150


Above 48. Siberian elm

151


Above right to left 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55. Junipers. 48 Siberian elm in front

152


Above 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55. Junipers. 48 Siberian elm in back

153


Above 56. Lemon

154


Above 57. Crepe myrtle

155


Above 58, 59, 60 Queen Palms

156


Above 61. Crepe myrtle

157


Above 62. Mexican fan palm (far right)

158


Above right to left 63 and 64 gap 65. Peruvian pepper. 63 and 64 look like one canopy

159


Above 63 and 64. Peruvian pepper. Tree 26 Myoporum in front.

160

staff report - planned development permit to construct 65

Documents