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.
Patricia Pare Apartments
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
ransportation Engineers
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.
Patricia Pare Apartments
Traffic and Circulation Study 8 Associated Transportation Engineers
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
Patricia Pare Apartments
Traffic and Circulation Study
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
Associated Transportation Engineers
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
ransportation Engineers
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.
Patricia Pare Apartments
Traffic and Circulation Study 12 Associated Transportation Engineers
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
ransportation Engineers
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
ransportation Engineers
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
V/C - Level of Service
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.
Patricia Pare Apartments
Traffic and Circulation Study 15 Associated Transportation Engineers
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
Patricia Pare Apartments
Traffic and Circulation Study
Existing
0.63 - B
0.48 -A
0.57 -A
V/C - Level of Service
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
Associated Transportation Engineers
January 27, 2017
74
REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED
Associated Transportation Engineers
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.
Patricia Pare Apartments
Traffic and Circulation Study 17 Associated Transportation Engineers
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
Patricia Pare Apartments
Traffic and Circulation Study 18 Associated Transportation Engineers
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
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 08/24/2016
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAi( 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: 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
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 (C)
SCENARI04 = CUMULATIVE+ PROJECTVOLUMES(B+C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
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
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 08/24/2016
TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAi< HOUR
N/S STREET: FIRST STREET
E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE
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: 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)
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 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 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.65 0.65
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B
·1 NOTES:
Printed: 10/24/16
87
PATRICIA PARC APARTMENTS (#16067) REF: 01 PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COU NT DATE : 08/24/2016
TIME PERIOD: P.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) 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
NORTH BOUND SOUTH 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 - EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 - CUMULATIVE (C)
SCENARIO 4 - CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES (B + C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
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
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.66 0.66
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B
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
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: 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
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND
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)
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
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 - -
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.44 0.45
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A
NOTES:
Printed: 09/07/16
89
PATRICIA PARC APARTMENTS (#16067) REF: 02 PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: 08/24/2016
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAi( HOUR
N/S STREET: PA TRICIA 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: 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
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND
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)
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
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 - -
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.48 0.49
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A
NOTES:
Printed: 09/07/16
90
PATRICIA PARC APARTMENTS (#16067) REF: 02AM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 08/24/2 01 6
TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: PATRICIA STREET
E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES A VENUE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
TRAFFI C VOLUME SUMMARY
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND W EST BOUND
VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(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
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND
LAN E GEOMETRICS L TR LT R L TTTR L TTT R
TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A +B)
SCENARIO 3 = CUMU LATIVE (C)
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 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
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.48 0.49
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A
NOTES:
Printed: 10/24/16
91
PATRICIA PARC APARTMENTS (#16067) REF: 02 PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORl<SHEET
COUNT DATE: 08/24/20 16
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: PA TRICIA 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
(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
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND
LANE GEOMETRICS L TR L TR L TITR L TIT R
TRAFFI C SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C)
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 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
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.58 0.59
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A
NOTES:
Printed: 10/24/16
92
PATRICIA PARC APARTMENTS (#16067) REF: 03AM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: 08/24/2016
TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAi( HOUR
N/S STREET: ERRINGER ROAD
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: 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
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND
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)
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
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
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.52 0.52
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A
NOTES:
Printed: 09/07/16
93
PATRICIA PARC APARTMENTS (#16067) REF: 03 PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: 08/24/2016
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAi( HOUR
N/S STREET: ERRINGER ROAD
EM 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
(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
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND
LANE 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)
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 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
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.57 0.57
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A
NOTES:
Printed: 09/07/16
94
PATRICIA PARC APARTMENTS (#16067) REF: 03AM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORl<SHEET COUNT DATE: 08/24/2016
TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
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
VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(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
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND
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
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.58 0.58
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A
N OTES:
Printed: 10/24/16
95
PATRICIA PARC APARTMENTS (#16067) REF: 03 PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: 08/24/2016
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAi< HOUR
N/S STREET: ERRINGER ROAD
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: 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
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND
LANE GEOMETRICS LL TTR L TT R LL TTTR LL 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)
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
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
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.70 0.70
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B
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
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
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 5 of 104
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
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 6 of 104
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
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 7 of 104
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
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 8 of 104
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
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 9 of 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
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 10 of 104
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
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 11 of 104
Table 1 Tree Observations Continued (On-site Trees 40-70)
#
Off-
site
Common Name Mult Trks DBH
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
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 12 of 104
Table 1 Tree Observations Continued (Off-site Trees 71 -88)
#
Off-
site
Common Name Mult Trks DBH
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
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 13 of 104
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
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 14 of 104
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
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 15 of 104
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
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 16 of 104
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
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 17 of 104
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
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 18 of 104
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
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 19 of 104
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
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 20 of 104
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
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 21 of 104
Table 5 Continued Tree Relocation Evaluation (On-site Trees 40 – 70)
#
Off-
site
Common Name
Prot
ect?
$ Value Evaluate Tree Relocation Relocation Issues Estimated Relocation
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
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 22 of 104
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?
$ Value Evaluate Tree Relocation Relocation Issues Estimated Relocation
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
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 23 of 104
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
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 24 of 104
Table 7 Tree Preservation Evaluation continued (On-site Trees 40 – 70)
#
Off-
site
Common Name Best Preservation Issues
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
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 25 of 104
Table 7 Tree Preservation Evaluation continued (Off-site Trees 71– 88)
#
Off-
site
Common Name Best Preservation Issues
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
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 26 of 104
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
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 27 of 104
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
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 28 of 104
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
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 29 of 104
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
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 30 of 104
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
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 31 of 104
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
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 32 of 104
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
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 33 of 104
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
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 34 of 104
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
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 35 of 104
APPENDIX A: TREE MAP REDUCED
The Tree Map is a 30 x 42 sheet attached to this report. Below is a reduced image.
131
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 36 of 104
APPENDIX B: TREE PHOTOGRAPHS
Above: tree 1 through 18 Italian cypress
132
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 37 of 104
Above tree 19. Dead elm, trumpet vine
133
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 38 of 104
Above tree 20. Crepe myrtle
134
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 39 of 104
Above tree 21. Camphor
135
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 40 of 104
Above tree 22. Dead Camphor’s
136
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 41 of 104
Above tree 23 and 24. Liquidambar
137
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 42 of 104
Above 25. Evergreen ashe
138
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 43 of 104
Above 26. Myoporum. Dead Myoporum in front. Trumpet vine foliage.
139
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 44 of 104
Above 27. Myoporum
140
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 45 of 104
Above right to left 28, 29, 30 Myoporum
141
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 46 of 104
Above 31. Myoporum with Peruvian pepper behind
142
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 47 of 104
Above 32. Peruvian pepper sapling behind dead Myoporum.
143
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 48 of 104
Above 33. Myoporum
144
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 49 of 104
Above 34. Peruvian pepper
145
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 50 of 104
Above 35. California walnut
146
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 51 of 104
Above 36, 37, 38 and 39. Myoporum
147
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 52 of 104
Above 40. Acacia golden waddle
148
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 53 of 104
Above 41. Weeping Bottlebrush
149
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 54 of 104
Above right to left. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47. Italian cypress
150
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 55 of 104
Above 48. Siberian elm
151
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 56 of 104
Above right to left 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55. Junipers. 48 Siberian elm in front
152
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 57 of 104
Above 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55. Junipers. 48 Siberian elm in back
153
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 58 of 104
Above 56. Lemon
154
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 59 of 104
Above 57. Crepe myrtle
155
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 60 of 104
Above 58, 59, 60 Queen Palms
156
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 61 of 104
Above 61. Crepe myrtle
157
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 62 of 104
Above 62. Mexican fan palm (far right)
158
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 63 of 104
Above right to left 63 and 64 gap 65. Peruvian pepper. 63 and 64 look like one canopy
159
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 64 of 104
Above 63 and 64. Peruvian pepper. Tree 26 Myoporum in front.
160